Subject: [dhcwg] draft-volz-dhc-3942-status-00.txt - next steps?

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2007 21:07:22 -0400

Hi:

draft-volz-dhc-3942-status-00.txt, Status of Reclassifying DHCPv4
Options (RFC 3942), will be expiring later this month.

>From the Prague IETF (March 2007) minutes:

---
Reclassifying DHCPv4 Options - RFC 3942
  Bernie Volz gave an update on the process to reclassify DHCPv4
  options as specified in RFC 3942.  In May, 2006, IANA moved all
  options that were not announced as "in use" to "Available".  Reports
  were received on the following option codes:

  128-135: PXE (only formal submission received; other uses reported
           anecdotally)
  150:     TFTP server addresses documented in
           draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option; no documents received for
           two other reported uses
  175-177: Uses reported but no documents received
  208-211: PXELinux options; documented in draft-ietf-dhc-pxelinux
  220:     Subnet allocation; documented in
           draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc
  221:     Subnet selection; documented in draft-ietf-dhc-agent-vpn-id

  Bernie proposed assigning option codes 128-135, 150, 208-211 and
  220-221 as "Tentatively Assigned", and reclassifying 175-177 as
  ""Available".  Bernie will write an I-D summarizing progress on RFC
  3942 progress for WG review and approval before requesting the
  changes from IANA.
---

So, we need "WG review and approval".

When it expires later this month, I can republish this as an individual
submission or, if adopted by the DHC WG, as a WG document.

I don't believe I've received any comments on this document (either in
favor or raising issues/objections).

Please look it over
(http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-volz-dhc-3942-status-00.txt)
as it would be good to incorporate issues before republication and
perhaps you can also indicate whether you are in favor of adopting this
as a WG item.

- Bernie

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

---

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Oct 2007 14:04:39 -0700

>   175-177: Uses reported but no documents received

I just poked the Etherboot team about the use of option 175.  They seem 
to have been under the mistaken impression that the process was 
completed when they had their option listed as "tentatively assigned". 
I informed them that so was not the case, and I got the impression they 
wanted to try to continue the process although were a little uncertain 
about how to proceed.

As far as I understand, option 175 is a tagged option space similar to 
option 43; they're unable to use option 43 because several operating 
systems want to use option 43 for their own purposes.  Thus, option 175 
is probably best described as "bootloader vendor-specific options".

	-hpa

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 17:38:14 -0400

It is a bit late (based on the RFC 3942 timeline), but they should write
up an I-D to document their use of this option ASAP.

I'd also suggest that if this isn't in wide deployment, that they
consider using options 124/125:

   124     V-I Vendor Class              Vendor-Identifying Vendor Class
[RFC3925]
   125     V-I Vendor-Specific           Vendor-Identifying
Vendor-Specific    [RFC3925]
           Information                   Information

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: H. Peter Anvin [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 5:05 PM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: DHC WG; Marty Connor
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-volz-dhc-3942-status-00.txt - next steps?

	-hpa