Re: [mif] #7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-04

["mif issue tracker" <[e-mail]>]

#7: separate specific routes from default routes? draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-
option-04


Comment (by alexandru.petrescu@…):

 > If there are two options instead of one this encorages the implementer
 > to dedicate different sections in the dhcpd.conf file, and allocate a
 > specific keyword for _default_ route.  This is something  that strikes
 > the eye an makes him/her more cautious about what to put there in that
 > single place.

 The usability problem you describe here is not a protocol issue, but a
 user interface issue.   It's entirely possible that if we should decide to
 use two options, some DHCP implementations will present both options using
 the same user interface.   So changing the underlying protocol does not
 address this issue, whether it is a serious issue or not.

 Also, pink elephants may evolve in the future.   Such elephants could
 potentially step on hosts that are attempting to configure routes.
 Should the IETF henceforth mandate the presence of a Pink Elephant
 Considerations section in all drafts?

 > Hm, use cases.  If I insist is that I believe there are some maybe under
 > development.

 Okay, so name one.

 > What do the others think about this issue?

 I can't speak for them, but I suspect they are wishing we would both shut
 up about this and work on something useful.

-- 
----------------------------------+---------------------------------
 Reporter:  alexandru.petrescu@…  |       Owner:  Alexandru Petrescu
     Type:  enhancement           |      Status:  new
 Priority:  trivial               |   Milestone:
Component:  dhcpv6-route-option   |     Version:
 Severity:  In WG Last Call       |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                        |
----------------------------------+---------------------------------

Ticket URL: <https://trac.tools.ietf.org/wg/mif/trac/ticket/7#comment:3>
mif <http://tools.ietf.org/mif/>