Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes

> There's a little more to it than just the scarcity of option codes in 
> DHCPv4.  Just before we instituted the new policy of assigning an option 
> code after acceptance to PS, there were several (10-15 or so) that were 
> proposed, had option codes assigned, and then were never followed up on.  
> Those option codes are now in limbo.
>
> Even though we have plenty of options code in DHCPv6, I don't think it's 
> a good idea to have option codes in an uncertain state - assigned to 
> options that never went to PS.  Perhaps we need some sort of sunsetting to 
> establish a process for marking option codes as "unused - do not reassign"
> ...

Sounds fine.   However, I don't think it's a particularly serious problem.
    Perhaps we should issue leases on options - if you don't have a current 
draft or RFC, your option code gets reclaimed.   I'd say that the draft 
should have wg sponsorship before a code gets issued, but OTOH it might be 
nice if, someday, the DHCwg were obsolete... :')


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