RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

I haven't looked in detail at Vijay's option definitions, but all domain names
should be encoded using Section 10 (Representation and use of domain names). So,
this may remove the need to have a bit in the FQDN option to specify the encoding!
This applies to issues 1 and 3 below.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Stapp [mailto:mjs@cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 5:07 PM
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

Vijay,
Thanks for putting this list together. I have a couple of observations.

1) The FQDN option needs, I think, to look a lot like the FQDN option for 
dhcpv4. The name encoding must be specified. There needs to be 
specification about hosts who do not initially know their entire fqdn. 
There needs to be a way to communicate about which party (if any) will be 
updating DNS. It's probably on my plate to produce that, actually.

2) The subnet-selection option text should not compel the server to somehow 
obey the client's suggestion. It should be explict that the server 
administrator's configuration takes precedence, and that the client's 
indication that it desires a specific subnet can only be a hint that's 
considered along with all of the other information available to the server.

A nit: isn't the option-len sufficient to determine the prefix length? Is 
the prefix-len byte necessary?

3) The encoding for the domain names in the NIS and NIS+ Domain Name 
options should be DNS encoding, shouldn't it? That seems more robust than 
ASCII to me.

4) The 'Service Location Protocol Directory Agent Option' places the 
'typed-scope-list-len' field before the 'DA address', rather than before 
the 'typed scope list'. Couldn't the length of the list immediately precede 
the list?

-- Mark

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