Subject: [dhcwg] RE: WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subscriber-id-01.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 02:48:36 -0400

Issues:

1) The motivation could for this option could be explained more completely.
It comes from the observation that, in some scenarios, the relay agent
supplying identification information like a circuit ID or remote ID may be
in a different administrative domain from the DHCP servers that receive the
relay agent option.  When the administrator of the relay agent makes a change
to the network configuration that changes the circuit ID or remote ID for
the subscriber, the MSP must contact each of the administrators of the DHCP
servers to update the corresponding entry in the DHCP servers.

For example, in a managed service provider (MSP) deployment, the relay agent
is in the administrative domain of the MSP while the ISPs using that MSP
each control their own independent DHCP server.  If the MSP changes the
attachment point of a subscriber, the MSP must contact each of the ISPs with
the new relay agent option information so that the ISPs can update their
DHCP servers.

The Subscriber ID suboption isolates changes in the network configuration to
the administrative domain of the relay agent.  That is, the administrator
can change the network configuration and the subscriber ID information
simultaneously, so the DHCP servers need not be updated with any new
information about the subscriber.

2) The Abstract states that the data value in a Subscriber ID suboption "can
be interpreted in any form by the DHCP server" and "its intended purpose is
to give additional information which the DHCP server can use in address
allocation".  The Introduction then gives more detail in defining the
contents of the suboption as a subscriber identifier, which seems to me to
be a more specific definition than the one in the Abstract.  it might be
clearer to give the more precise definition in the Abstract, as well.

Nits:

The data in the Subscriber ID suboption is variously described as "an array
of bytes" and a "configurable hexadecimal value".  The description of the
data would be clarified if a uniform describing phrase were used throughout
the document.

In the third paragraph of section 2, the last sentence should be changed to
reflect that the subscriber ID can be considered in the assignment of other
configuration parameters in addition to the assignment of an IP address.

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg