[Gen-art] Re: Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-02.txt

Hi, Ralph,

This background helps with my concerns (I just wanted IANA to get clued in 
from SOME specification!).

Thanks,

Spencer

> Spencer - It turns out this draft has a *very* long history.  It is 
> intended
> to document the use of some optinos that date back to a time when IANA
> handed out options codes for DHCP options *before* the defining RFC was
> published.  The current process for assigning option codes is defined in 
> RFC
> 2939.
>
> The intention, then, for this draft (to be an Informational RFC) is to
> document the use of several DHCP options that have been in common use
> without a defining RFC for many years.
>
> We could address one of your issues by explicitly telling IANA not to
> reassign these codes elsewhere, but I think that issue might have been
> addressed in RFC 3679,
>
> And, the option codes that are listed by IANA as "tentatively assigned" 
> are
> in that state as part of the process for extending the DHCPoption code 
> space
> in RFC 3924.
>
> I hope that information answers your high-level questions.
>
> I agree with your editorial commentthat the sentence you cite could be 
> more
> clearly worded and I'll be happy to revise it.
>
> - Ralph
>
>
> On 1/14/06 1:40 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org> wrote:
>
>> I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this 
>> specification
>> (for background on Gen-ART, please see
>> http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).
>>
>> Summary: Huh?
>>
>> If I understand the draft and underlying working group mailing list 
>> traffic
>> correctly, this is being published as an Informational RFC to say that 
>> PXE
>> (and, for good measure, Etherboot?) are using DHCP options that aren't
>> allocated by IANA. Some of the mailing list postings showed previous
>> versions of the draft with IANA considerations, but the current version 
>> of
>> the draft says there are no IANA considerations.
>>
>> So, the plan is to publish an Informational document that describes this
>> practice, but does not tell IANA not to allocate the hijacked option 
>> codes
>> for some other use? Oh-kay... although
>> http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters shows the option 
>> codes
>> as already tentatively allocated (one presumes this was based on version 
>> 01
>> of this draft).
>>
>> If this is the plan, the document is close to OK for publication, 
>> although I
>> expect the RFC Editor would expand acronyms, etc. I thought
>>
>>    As options 128-135 are not officially assigned for PXE use (previous
>>    to November 2004 they were considered site-specific options, [6]),
>>    use of these options may conflict with other uses of these options.
>>
>> was oddly phrased - perhaps the last line should have been something like
>>
>>    use of these option values for PXE may conflict with other uses of the
>> same options on the same networks.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Spencer Dawkins
> 

_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
Gen-art@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art