Re: [mif] I won't be in Taipei for MIF WG

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Let me add further to this.

One of the first steps some implementers do is make sure their wireshark
understands their messages... has one tried that on route-option? (for
my information thanks).

(we have tried wireshark extensions for drlo and it works, dissectors
available upon request - that is C code as well).

Alex
Le 27/10/2011 18:15, Alexandru Petrescu a écrit :
> Le 27/10/2011 17:29, Ted Lemon a écrit :
>> On Oct 27, 2011, at 10:33 AM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
>>>> 1. While having working implementation helps if the design is
>>>> sound, you can't use working implementation to substantiate a
>>>> proposal.
>>>
>>> Hm? How does this statement compare to "rough consensus and running
>>> code" substantiating a proposal?
>>
>> There is no rough consensus for your proposal, Alexandru.
> 
> And  is there running code for route-option?
> 
>> If your implementation is so complicated that it requires you to
>> contribute code to the ISC, that should already be a clue that it's
>> a bad idea: DHCP options are simple, not complicated.
> 
> Efficiency sometimes rightfully implies code complexity (check e.g.
> PacketBB encoding for wireless settings).
> 
>> You aren't supposed to have to change the server source code to add
>> an option. You are supposed to be able to just specify the option
>> format, and the existing server should be able to parse it.
> 
> I believe the code format is C code currently (e.g. some quoted text).
> 
>> This is a feature of every server I know of, certainly including the
>>   ISC server, which has an option format grammar, and the Nominum
>> server, which has something very similar.
>>
>> The ISC DHCP client is likewise configurable to allow new options to
>> be described without source code changes.
> 
> I am not sure about it.
> 
>> So the sum total code required to implement the route option should
>> be zero lines.
> 
> I am not sure really.  There should be some code (script? bash? textual
> conf lines?)
> 
> Please provide some sort of explanation or proof or so, if possible,
> thank you.
> 
> Alex
> 
>>
>