Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on "DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) Options"

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:26:26 -0500

This message announces a WG last call on "DHCP Preboot eXecution
Environment (PXE) Options" <draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-01.txt>.  The
last call will conclude at 1700 ET on 2005-04-01.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not
represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
to the IESG.

This document includes revisions based on the WG last call on the
previous revision, draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt.

"DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment (PXE) Options" documents the
definition of DHCP options used by PXE and EFI clients.  This draft is
available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-01.txt

- Ralph Droms 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 08:49:17 -0700

Dumb question: is this a standards-track document or an informational 
draft?   The reason I ask is that it consumes option codes 128-135.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 10:52:19 -0500

Informational.

- Ralph

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 15:38:04 -0500

Shouldn't section 3.4 use something other than "Site Specific Options"?
Perhaps it should just be "Options Requested By PXE Clients"? Though a note
about the possible conflict of these previously site-specific options
(128-135) and conflicts with future work might be worth it too?

3.4  Site Specific Options Being Requested By PXE Client

   All compliant PXE clients MUST include a request for DHCP options 128
   through 135 in all DHCP and PXE packets.  The format and contents of
   these options are NOT defined by the PXE specification.  These
   options MAY be present in the DHCP and PXE boot server replies and
   are meant for use by the downloaded network bootstrap programs.
   These options are NOT used by the PXE boot ROMs. 

It may be good to hold this work up for a few more months (until the RFC
3942 May deadline) as then we might have a better sense of the possible
conflicts and whether 128-135 will be "reserved" for PXE. Etherboot also
uses 128, 129, and 130 so we already have a conflict. It may well be that
PXE and Etherboot are mutually exclusive, in which case the presense of
option 93 and 94 can be used to determine whether options 128, 129, and 130
are PXE or Etherboot?

We'll have to exclude 128-135 from future IANA assignments to new options.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 10:52 AM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on "DHCP Preboot 
> eXecutionEnvironment (PXE) Options"
> 
> Informational.
> 
> - Ralph
>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:07:42 -0500

Bernie - what do you mean by 'use something other than "Site Specific
Options"'?  Do you mean the title for the section?

While there's no particular reason to publish this document quickly, it is
intended to be an Informational RFC, documenting existing practice.  As
such, I don't know if there is any value in postponing publication until the
RFC 3942 deadline in May.

Also, options 128-125 aren't actually defined in this document; they are
just listed as requested by the PXE client.

- Ralph

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2005 16:53:38 -0500

Ralph:

>Bernie - what do you mean by 'use something other than
>"Site Specific Options"'?  Do you mean the title for
>the section?

Correct, change the title of the section (and use of "site specific" if used
anywhere else).

>Also, options 128-125 aren't actually defined in this
>document; they are just listed as requested by the PXE
>client.

Correct, but it does say that a (PXE) client should request them. And, what
if a PXE client sends this Parameter Request List to a server that
implements option 132 as something completley different (not a PXE option)?

This document presumes that 128-135 are PXE options, which may not be the
case today and certainly hasn't been done officially. But, there's nothing
we can really do about that as implementations exist today and this is
attempting to document existing usage.

I guess a good question to ask is what changes would I recommend post the
first RFC 3942 date, especially given that we're already aware of conflicts
(PXE and Etherboot).

I would guess that we'll have IANA remove 128-135 for possible assignment to
future options.

Perhaps adding:
   As options 128-135 are not officially assigned for PXE use (previous to
November 2004
   they were considered site-specific options [RFC 3942]), use of these
options may
   conflict with other uses of these options.

Feel free to improve the wording.

Later this year, we might be able to add "Because options 128-135 are used
by PXE implementations and for other uses, such as [Etherboot], they have no
official designation but will not be used for future options assigned in
accordance with [RFC 2939]."

- Bernie

> Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2005 4:08 PM
> To: Bernie Volz
> Cc: [email-masked]; 'Ted Lemon'
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on "DHCP 
> PrebooteXecutionEnvironment (PXE) Options"
>