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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 27 October 2011 16:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: mif@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EC22D21F8C3F for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.500, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VLZOXyPJxgoH for <mif@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:15:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C895321F8C33 for <mif@ietf.org>; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 09:15:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.2) with ESMTP id p9RGFRwA021788 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:15:27 +0200
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p9RGFQu9004536; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:15:26 +0200 (envelope-from alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.133.173]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.1) with ESMTP id p9RGFKCr027500; Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:15:26 +0200
Message-ID: <4EA98398.5010901@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 18:15:20 +0200
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:7.0.1) Gecko/20110929 Thunderbird/7.0.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
References: <4E88B6EF.9050800@gmail.com> <COL118-W23789C049B5BE989F7B721B1D20@phx.gbl> <4EA93870.4020302@gmail.com> <4EA94CB3.5090606@gmail.com> <4EA9654D.2010506@gmail.com> <4EA96BCA.204@gmail.com> <E6AE72A6-B520-475D-BC3C-27567745D1C0@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <E6AE72A6-B520-475D-BC3C-27567745D1C0@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=GB2312
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Cc: mif <mif@ietf.org>, Margaret <margaretw42@gmail.com>, "<maximouton@gmail.com>" <maximouton@gmail.com>, Hui Deng <denghui02@hotmail.com>
Subject: Re: [mif] I won't be in Taipei for MIF WG
X-BeenThere: mif@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Multiple Interface Discussion List <mif.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/mif>
List-Post: <mailto:mif@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif>, <mailto:mif-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2011 16:15:32 -0000

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

>