Re: Re: [dhcwg] WG Last Call for DHCP draft

Vivek,

One question is hard, one is easy...

On Wed, 2004-12-15 at 20:55 -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> This draft uses a SHOULD to specify what data should be in the client 
> identifier. This is in conflict with another draft that's in the 
> process of working its way through to last call - 
> draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt. This is a bad thing - someone 
> reading this spec will wonder which of the two specifications 
> supersedes the other. I don't see any reason to specify the format of 
> the client identifier in this draft - instead, refer the reader to 
> draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt and to RFC2132 for advice on how to 
> format the client-identifier option.
> 
This is the hard question... What should we do about this... I think we
should take this  request - and say our client ID SHOULD follow RFC2132
(if I understand the problem correctly)... Is there any non-capped
advise that we can give ?

Can you propose a change for this Vivek ?

> Also, you have a reference to RFC1542. This is superseded by RFC2132, 
> so you should refer to RFC2132 instead - it is a huge mistake for 
> someone to read RFC1542 as advice on how to implement a DHCP client, 
> and so this draft shouldn't imply that the reader ought to look at 
> RFC1542 - he or she oughtn't.
> 
OK - this is the easy one.  Can you change the reference to RFC2132.

Any objections to this for closing this issue ?

Bill
> Ralph, what's going on with draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt? This 
> is getting a little bit embarrassing... :'}
> 
I think this is DHC work - nothing for us to see here - IPoIB is moving
on

Bill