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

Picking up the thread again with the Ted's comments/Bill's questions:

On Mon, 20 Dec 2004, Bill Strahm wrote:

> 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 ?

I looked at the ID Ted has pointed to and that helped me understand Ted's 
comment a lot better. I've modified the draft such that it no longer 
states SHOULD for any particular format but instead gives the listed 
formats as examples of possible uses.  Ted's draft is not mandatory either.
A user therefore has the option of using any of the formats described.

The above change is included in the next version (-08.txt) of the draft.

> 
> 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 This is superseded by RFC2132, 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 ?

I've kept the reference to RFC1542 because RFC 2131 itself points to RFC1542
when discussing the ramifications of using the BROADCAST flag.

Vivek


> 
> 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
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
> 
>