RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option

I agree that using a separate option is the best (and we might as well let
the author of that separate draft continue that work). This also benefits
the case for putting the FQDN in the IA_* options area.

About the location of the FQDN option, yeah ... I keep forgetting the
complexities involved, since we have to handle client to server and server
to client communication and if the option is allowed to appear in multiple
places, it gets very messy.

For example, if the option were just in the IAADDR options area, many client
to server messages don't include any IAADDRs. So, this would force the
option to also be allowed in other places (IA_* options or message options).
This greatly complicates the client and server processing code.

By putting it in the IA_* options, we're restricting it to stateful (PD or
NA) but I don't think that's an issue (especially if we don't use it to
communicate the zone name).

For Information-Request, the separate option can be used to communicate the
zone. There's no reason to use the FQDN option for this as the server can't
do any updates for the client since it has no idea what the client's
addresses are.

So, this means that there is NO immediate reason for me to revise
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-00.txt. Therefore, PLEASE REVIEW THIS DRAFT and
provide me comments -- good and bad -- so we can determine whether to revise
it or start the WG Last-Call.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 9:34 AM
> To: Bernie Volz
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; 'Mark Stapp'
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option
> 
> 
> If we're going to use a flag bit, then it's better to just have a 
> different option that means "this is your zone."   It's silly to 
> overload it with a bit.   The format for the options can be 
> identical, 
> if it makes sense, but there's no reason to complicate the 
> option with 
> control bits.   I see your point about putting the option in the IA, 
> Bernie - that makes sense.   I think that's what we talked about 
> before, although I admit I hadn't mentally made the distinction.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 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