[dhcwg] Re: [Ipoverib] IP over IB DHCP draft last call

Vivek Kashyap <kashyapv@us.ibm.com> Thu, 17 March 2005 03:17 UTC

Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA01899 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:17:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DBlZy-0005qo-6U for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:21:51 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DBlT3-0002Pj-H1; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:14:37 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1DBjss-0001HC-S2; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:33:11 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA23594; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:33:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.131]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1DBjx1-00012E-H8; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:37:28 -0500
Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.10/8.12.9) with ESMTP id j2H1Wu4I713118; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 20:32:56 -0500
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.10/NCO/VER6.6) with ESMTP id j2H1WuV8191390; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:32:56 -0700
Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2H1WtPb013351; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:32:55 -0700
Received: from dyn9047022085.beaverton.ibm.com (dyn9047022085.beaverton.ibm.com [9.47.22.85]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id j2H1WtNN013291; Wed, 16 Mar 2005 18:32:55 -0700
Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 17:19:28 -0800 (PST)
From: Vivek Kashyap <kashyapv@us.ibm.com>
X-X-Sender: kashyapv@dyn319548.beaverton.ibm.com
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
In-Reply-To: <200503161836.j2GIaXLL005071@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0503161710120.5911-100000@dyn319548.beaverton.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7aafa0432175920a4b3e118e16c5cb64
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 16 Mar 2005 22:14:36 -0500
Cc: ipoverib@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: [Ipoverib] IP over IB DHCP draft last call
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0a7aa2e6e558383d84476dc338324fab

Thomas,

By now 3315id has been submitted to IESG by dhc wg - that removes the concern 
about referencing a draft that was still in the wg. Therefore I've no issues 
with referencing 3315id. 

If there are no other objections or issues from the ipoib/dhc wgs,  I'll 
udpate the draft and resubmit.

Vivek



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:

> FWIW, and speaking as a regular WG member now, and having gone
> reviewed both draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-04.txt and
> draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniband-09.txt, and having gone and
> reviewed some previous the threads on this topic...
> 
> The current document says:
> 
>     According to [RFC2132] the "client-identifier" option may consist of
>     any data that uniquely identifies the interface. Examples of
>     suitable "client-identifier" values are the link-layer address,
>     fully qualified domain name (FQDN) or, an EUI-64 value associated
>     with the interface.
> 
> In other words, any valid client-identifier can be used.
> 
> I see no reason why the IB document needs to do anything different
> than just follow the recommendation in the 3315id. If there is any
> reason why some other variant should be allowed, I'd like to hear
> it. Leaving it up to the implementor to decide just creates confusion
> and unecessary variation that serves little purpose (at least as far
> as I can tell). Morever, the motivations for using a 3315id-style
> client-identifier are compelling. So, unless there is a good reason
> why IB can't use 3315-id, I'd suggest replacing the above paragraph
> with something like:
> 
> 
>    When using DHCP over an Infiniband interface, a client-identifier
>    as described in [draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-04.txt] MUST be used.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> IPoverIB@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
> 
> 


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg