Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05 - how to proceed?

Thomas Huth <THUTH@de.ibm.com> Thu, 22 October 2009 07:19 UTC

Return-Path: <THUTH@de.ibm.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC7313A67D4 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.236
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.236 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=1.504, BAYES_20=-0.74, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id MZteNpC7vp78 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mtagate2.de.ibm.com (mtagate2.de.ibm.com [195.212.17.162]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA6E03A6893 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 00:19:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.167.81]) by mtagate2.de.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n9M7JV7s023320 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:19:31 GMT
Received: from d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.165.216]) by d12nrmr1707.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id n9M7JVhY2896070 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:19:31 +0200
Received: from d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id n9M7JUPa027526 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:19:30 +0200
Received: from d12ml072.megacenter.de.ibm.com (d12ml072.megacenter.de.ibm.com [9.149.166.115]) by d12av05.megacenter.de.ibm.com (8.14.3/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVin) with ESMTP id n9M7JUSJ027520 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:19:30 +0200
In-Reply-To: <D9529C9B-9C3D-4D63-B647-A08FB044757B@nominum.com>
References: <200910062234.AAA07005@TR-Sys.de> <AD61797F-DB2D-4889-8888-5339521ADE8F@nominum.com> <OF029AB4A7.6EEA954A-ONC125764B.004E95CE-C125764B.00536F30@de.ibm.com> <FBD14811-7C9A-4FCB-8707-071A7CA12B96@nominum.com> <OF73909874.9B93FADE-ONC1257653.002E96C8-C1257653.00302A9F@de.ibm.com> <D9529C9B-9C3D-4D63-B647-A08FB044757B@nominum.com>
X-KeepSent: F5D5DC09:ED7DB3C1-C1257657:0026C039; type=4; name=$KeepSent
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 8.5 December 05, 2008
Message-ID: <OFF5D5DC09.ED7DB3C1-ONC1257657.0026C039-C1257657.00283287@de.ibm.com>
From: Thomas Huth <THUTH@de.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:19:03 +0200
X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D12ML072/12/M/IBM(Release 8.0.1|February 07, 2008) at 22/10/2009 09:19:30
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-transfer-encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-netboot-05 - how to proceed?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2009 07:19:25 -0000

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote on 18/10/2009 23:55:00:

> On Oct 18, 2009, at 1:46 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> > I think that such an option highjacking won't happen with DHCPv6
> > again:
> > Since we've got a "parameter option" in our draft already which can
> > be used
> > to pass such configuration data to the bootloader/kernel, there is
> > no more
> > need that they abuse extra DHCP options for this.
>
> Okay.   The draft doesn't really say that.   I think it would be worth
> saying that specifically, so that people realize that that is one
> valid use for these options.   Otherwise we may find that people think
> these serve some other purpose--it certainly didn't occur to me that
> this was what bootfile parameters were for, although now that you
> mention it I see no reason why they wouldn't work for this.

OK, but how would you call such parameters instead? For normal programs, I
would call them "command line options", but there is no command line at the
firmware level...

> So, assuming you make that clear in the draft, would you consider a
> draft that had just one bootfile-url option, and just one bootfile-
> parameters option to be useful?

We talked to a couple of people in the past days, and I think now yes, such
a one-option approach would be useful for most scenarios (and the others
can be solved by other means, like second stage bootloaders etc., just like
in the IPv4 world).
So since the multi-option idea rather caused confusion and/or dislike
instead of ardour, we're going to remove that and submit a new version of
our draft with just one bootfile- and parameter-option.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen / Kind regards,
   Thomas Huth
                                                                           
    IBM Deutschland                 Vorsitzender des Aufsichtsrats:        
    Research & Development GmbH     Martin Jetter                          
    Schönaicher Str. 220            Geschäftsführung: Erich Baier          
    71032 Böblingen                 Sitz der Gesellschaft: Böblingen       
    Tel.: +49-7031-16-2183          Registergericht: Amtsgericht           
                                    Stuttgart, HRB 243294