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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 10 October 2009 17:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 0FB4F3A6924 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:31:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.366
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.366 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.233, BAYES_00=-2.599, 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 7-rGbZQM5VAi for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og117.obsmtp.com (exprod7og117.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.6]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 714723A6897 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:31:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob117.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKStDFS1AD2KXwD3AeeDzRILIXGk8sxtMN@postini.com; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:33:02 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EB5641B8296; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:33:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:57 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF029AB4A7.6EEA954A-ONC125764B.004E95CE-C125764B.00536F30@de.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 10:32:55 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <FBD14811-7C9A-4FCB-8707-071A7CA12B96@nominum.com>
References: <200910062234.AAA07005@TR-Sys.de> <AD61797F-DB2D-4889-8888-5339521ADE8F@nominum.com> <OF029AB4A7.6EEA954A-ONC125764B.004E95CE-C125764B.00536F30@de.ibm.com>
To: Thomas Huth <THUTH@de.ibm.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
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: Sat, 10 Oct 2009 17:31:16 -0000

Wow, a lot to think about.   I guess we should have had this  
discussion a year ago - I'm sorry for not doing more to make it happen  
earlier.

I like the idea of getting rid of the priority entirely, and that  
makes sense if the bootfiles are all the same.   And since there's no  
way to differentiate between them, it makes sense that they are the  
same.   However, mentioning PXE and yaboot does point out a problem  
with this approach: it failed last time.   We wound up with yaboot  
options that were allocated without a draft or contact with the IANA,  
and PXE was a bit of a mess too.

So let me ask you this: suppose we took out the priority option, and  
only allowed a single boot parameters option.   Would that draft be  
something that people here would actually use as it was?   Or would  
they find themselves adding extensions?