Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-bcmcv{4, 6}-option-??.txt

Hello, Ted,

Thanks for the comments. Please see inline...

At 11:08 AM 2/10/2005 -0800, Ted Lemon wrote:
>I have a couple of comments.   First, given the process we've been going 
>through to free up option codes, I don't think there's a strong argument 
>for making these drafts depend on the new vendor-specific option encoding, 
>by which I basically mean I don't care about this issue, and I don't think 
>the wg needs to care about it.
>
>My main concern about these two drafts is that they are two drafts.
>Why not just have one draft?   There's so much common text between them 
>that it seems bogus.   In saying this, I realize that I may well have 
>argued the other way earlier - I don't remember the history of these 
>drafts very well.   So this isn't a big deal, but I am curious if the 
>authors can speak to this point.

I don't think it's the first time we're defining protocol 
options/extensions for IPv4 & IPv6 in separate drafts. For example, options 
used for SIP servers are defined in separate RFCs 3319/3361. Why this 
should be any different?

>Regarding the bcmcv4 draft, the enc byte needs to go.   I don't see any 
>reason for this added complexity.  Also, the draft specifies that clients 
>should support compression, which I think is right since it's consistent 
>with how the domain-name-search-list option works, but then the example 
>that's given isn't compressed.   So this should be fixed - the example 
>should be compressed.

No problem, we'll fix it.

>The text in the bcmcv6 draft is less specific, and the examples are 
>extremely unspecific - I would suggest making them more like the ones in 
>the bcmcv4 draft if the two drafts can't just be merged.

Fine. We'll add more details to align the two drafts.

>If the changes I've suggested can be made, I'd be in favor of advancing 
>these drafts separately.   I'd definitely be somewhat happier if they were 
>combined.

We'd prefer not to merge them but we'll send an update with changes you 
suggested.

Thanks,
Parviz

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

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