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

On Jan 27, 2005, at 11:36 PM, Vivek Kashyap wrote:
> The 3315id-v4 draft provides a method that is going to be applicable
> to any DHCP implementation however it still does not void the use of
> other possible client-identifiers.

It effectively deprecates them.   It goes against the flow of forward 
progress to define new identifiers that are in conflict with the 3315id 
draft.   Ideally what you should be doing is defining whatever 
identifiers you think are needed in the context of the 3315 draft.   At 
worst, you should simply avoid defining the format of your identifiers, 
since there is adequate language in RFC2132 describing the construction 
of identifiers already.

> You confuse me...a while back you had accepted that I'll make it
> clearer than it is now that there are other methods to create 
> client-ids.
> I was fully convinced we had resolved the issue :).

I would be happy with one of two things: either you reference the 
3314-id-for-v4 draft, or you take out the language defining the format 
of the client identifier.   I would be unhappy if you left your 
definitions in but stated clearly that they were not required, but I 
might not be sufficiently unhappy to argue against advancing your 
draft.

I am unhappy with the draft as it is currently written.   You agreed to 
make some changes; I am happy that you agreed to make these changes, 
and eagerly await the new draft, so that I can read it and see if I am 
happy with the changes that you make.   I can't really say one way or 
the other whether I will be happy with the changes you make until I see 
them.

I am not the only person you have to please.   I think that doing what 
I recommended in the first place (taking out your client identifier 
formats and just referencing the 3315-id-for-v4 draft) would be your 
best bet in terms of pleasing the other people you have to please.   
You can go against this advice, and you may get away with it, or it may 
significantly delay the advancement of your draft.   I have no way to 
predict which of these two outcomes is more likely, but I suspect the 
second outcome is more likely.

> I choose not to keep every response in the thread.
No problem - the list is archived at:

	http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/index.html

BTW, I just submitted a new version of the 3315-id-for-v4 draft, which 
corrects the two outstanding complaints about the draft (thanks to 
David Hankins for catching a really glaring error we'd all missed in 
the previous version, and to Bernie Volz for suggesting a replacement 
for the offending text).   Given that the draft was already in last 
call, I hope that it can be finished up quickly.