Re: IP over IB DHCP draft last call

Thomas,

By now 3315id has been submitted to IESG by dhc wg - that removes the concern 
about referencing a draft that was still in the wg. Therefore I've no issues 
with referencing 3315id. 

If there are no other objections or issues from the ipoib/dhc wgs,  I'll 
udpate the draft and resubmit.

Vivek



On Wed, 16 Mar 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:

> FWIW, and speaking as a regular WG member now, and having gone
> reviewed both draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-04.txt and
> draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniband-09.txt, and having gone and
> reviewed some previous the threads on this topic...
> 
> The current document says:
> 
>     According to [RFC2132] the "client-identifier" option may consist of
>     any data that uniquely identifies the interface. Examples of
>     suitable "client-identifier" values are the link-layer address,
>     fully qualified domain name (FQDN) or, an EUI-64 value associated
>     with the interface.
> 
> In other words, any valid client-identifier can be used.
> 
> I see no reason why the IB document needs to do anything different
> than just follow the recommendation in the 3315id. If there is any
> reason why some other variant should be allowed, I'd like to hear
> it. Leaving it up to the implementor to decide just creates confusion
> and unecessary variation that serves little purpose (at least as far
> as I can tell). Morever, the motivations for using a 3315id-style
> client-identifier are compelling. So, unless there is a good reason
> why IB can't use 3315-id, I'd suggest replacing the above paragraph
> with something like:
> 
> 
>    When using DHCP over an Infiniband interface, a client-identifier
>    as described in [draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-04.txt] MUST be used.
> 
> Thomas
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> IPoverIB mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipoverib
> 
>