Subject: [Ipoverib] WG Last Call for DHCP draft

From: "Bill Strahm" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 19:13:57 -0800

It is time for WG last call for DHCP.  Normally I would ask for a 2 week
last call - but with a week for Christmas I would like to push the date
out to 7 Jan 2005.

I am CC'ing the WG Chair of the DHC WG so that we can arrange how to
handle a last call going through his working group.  If anyone needs
extra time please contact me with when you can complete your review.

As always comments/concerns to the WG mailing lists.

The draft in question is
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-ipoib-dhcp-over-infiniban
d-07.txt

Thank you

Bill Strahm

IPoIB WG Co-Chair

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 15 Dec 2004 20:55:34 -0700

This draft uses a SHOULD to specify what data should be in the client 
identifier. This is in conflict with another draft that's in the 
process of working its way through to last call - 
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt. This is a bad thing - someone 
reading this spec will wonder which of the two specifications 
supersedes the other. I don't see any reason to specify the format of 
the client identifier in this draft - instead, refer the reader to 
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt and to RFC2132 for advice on how to 
format the client-identifier option.

Also, you have a reference to RFC1542. This is superseded by RFC2132, 
so you should refer to RFC2132 instead - it is a huge mistake for 
someone to read RFC1542 as advice on how to implement a DHCP client, 
and so this draft shouldn't imply that the reader ought to look at 
RFC1542 - he or she oughtn't.

Ralph, what's going on with draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt? This 
is getting a little bit embarrassing... :'}

---

From: Bill Strahm <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 10:37:10 -0800

Vivek,

One question is hard, one is easy...

> format the client-identifier option.
This is the hard question... What should we do about this... I think we
should take this  request - and say our client ID SHOULD follow RFC2132
(if I understand the problem correctly)... Is there any non-capped
advise that we can give ?

Can you propose a change for this Vivek ?

> RFC1542 - he or she oughtn't.
OK - this is the easy one.  Can you change the reference to RFC2132.

Any objections to this for closing this issue ?

Bill
> is getting a little bit embarrassing... :'}
I think this is DHC work - nothing for us to see here - IPoIB is moving
on

Bill

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 11:00:23 -0800 (PST)

> Can you propose a change for this Vivek ?

I have not had a chance to go over the draft Ted pointed to -- it appears to
be version -03.txt. 

However, the DHCP over InfiniBand draft does not define the client identifier 
option format itself but only describes the choices for client-identifier 
field itself. These choices are InfiniBand specific and are not likely to
be covered by a generic draft.

The text can be further clarified that the "SHOULD" only applies to the 
selection of one of the formats as described in RFC2132 to avoid any
possible confusion.  

The content of the client-identifier under Type 0 as described in the DHCP 
over InfiniBand draft is conformant to RFC2132. So is the case with the use 
of Type 32. 

> OK - this is the easy one.  Can you change the reference to RFC2132.

I believe both references exist in the current draft. I'll drop the 1542 
reference.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:04:11 -0700

> Can you propose a change for this Vivek ?

The right change is to not say anything about the format of the client 
identifier option in the draft.   Either that, or reference the 
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-??.txt draft, which is (belatedly) in last 
call and will probably advance to RFC before this draft anyway (wishful 
thinking, perhaps :').