Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-02.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 09 March 2004 18:34 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14077 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:34:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0m3E-0007t1-V0 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:34:01 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i29IY0W5030309 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:34:00 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0m3E-0007sm-Qy for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:34:00 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA14059 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:33:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0m3C-0000fK-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:33:58 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B0m2A-0000U5-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:32:55 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0m1Q-0000Jq-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:32:08 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0m1J-0007kC-Bu; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:32:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1B0m0O-0007ii-HA for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:31:04 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA13911 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 13:31:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0m0M-00008Q-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:31:02 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1B0lzN-0007kX-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:30:02 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1B0lys-0007ZZ-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 09 Mar 2004 13:29:30 -0500
Received: from [66.93.187.232] (dsl093-187-232.chi2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.187.232]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA1E21B21B2; Tue, 9 Mar 2004 12:25:02 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <000001c405f9$806e3bc0$6601a8c0@BVolz>
References: <000001c405f9$806e3bc0$6601a8c0@BVolz>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v612)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <AE544507-71F7-11D8-A5C1-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-02.txt
Date: Tue, 09 Mar 2004 12:29:20 -0600
To: Bernie Volz <volz@metrocast.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.612)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Mar 9, 2004, at 11:10 AM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> 2. Place appropriate warnings/cautions/directions as to what a server 
> is
> supposed to use as the "client identifier". Though, while this 
> resolves the
> situation for those servers that are modified to support this work, it
> doesn't resolve the issue for those servers that don't.

Just as a reminder, there is no standard saying what servers currently 
are supposed to do with client identifier- there are just a bunch of 
soon-to-expire drafts.   However, your point isn't about standards, but 
about what's deployed.   My point in bringing this up is not to say 
"it's not a problem", but rather to try to suggest that the right 
solution _is_ in fact to say "you have to run servers that conform to 
the standard if you want it to work," not to make the protocol more 
complex to account for non-conforming implementations.  The intention 
when I was asked to write this draft was that it would be a normative 
reference for the DNS update drafts, so no DHCP server that conforms to 
the DNS update drafts will fail to implement this standard.

I'm not sure where the warning you're proposing should go - in this 
draft or in one of the DNS update drafts.


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