Subject: Re: [Ipoverib] Re: [dhcwg] WG Last Call for DHCP draft

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 13:49:35 -0800

My personal preference on the second issue is the same as Ralph's: you 
should just take out all the text about how to format the client 
identifier and reference the draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-03.txt draft. 

<VK> I'm not sure if Ralph said that...in any case see below. If you go 
over IPoIB archives you will find  the original discussion on the 
client-identifiers and the resultant draft. 
<VK>

   If you want to have your text in there as well, I'm not going to 
fight it really hard, but the right thing to do is definitely to 
reference the 3315id-for-v4 draft.   I presume the motivation for not 
referencing it is to avoid a dependency on that draft for finalizing 
the infiniband draft?

<VK> True..I'm not convinced that a reference to every draft that may 
become relevant has to be referred to .. if it was an RFC I'd immediately 
put a reference in. The dhcp over infiniband draft is not precluding any 
other use.

<VK>

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

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 15:15:56 -0700

On Jan 27, 2005, at 2:49 PM, Vivek Kashyap wrote:

> True..I'm not convinced that a reference to every draft that may 
> become relevant has to be referred to .. if it was an RFC I'd 
> immediately put a reference in. The dhcp over infiniband draft is not 
> precluding any other use.

Vivek, this isn't a case of a draft that may become relevant.   The 
draft that I suggested you reference solves precisely the problem 
you're trying to address.   The reason I wrote the draft was to address 
problems raised by the DNS working group chair and several area 
directors in the RFCs that you are referencing - I didn't just make it 
up for my own personal satisfaction.   The language in your draft 
performs the same function as my draft - it isn't a case of them being 
loosely related.   I've made some suggestions for how to mitigate this 
conflict, but ultimately the right thing to do is to simply remove the 
conflict.

As to your question of whether the draft needs to be referred to, I'm 
willing to listen to arguments that you needn't reference the draft, 
and to look at text you propose to mitigate the problem.   However, 
it's still true that the easiest way to satisfy my concerns would be to 
reference the draft that I've advised you to reference.

You have to decide whether it's quicker to do as I ask and wait for my 
draft to make RFC, or to try to avoid referencing the draft.   It's not 
at all the case that I have final say in whether your draft advances.   
Do be aware, though, that there are two reasons why I've advised you to 
reference my draft.   One of them is that I think it's the right thing 
to do, and will lead to the best outcome.   The second is that if the 
draft passes the working group, I think following my advice about these 
specific concerns is the best way to get it through the IESG.   I may 
be completely mistaken about that, of course, but that's why I've given 
you this advice.

---

From: Vivek Kashyap <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2005 22:36:31 -0800 (PST)

> Vivek, this isn't a case of a draft that may become relevant.   The 

Yes, it is the case of a draft becoming an RFC to become relevant :). 

The 3315id-v4 draft provides a method that is going to be applicable 
to any DHCP implementation however it still does not void the use of 
other possible client-identifiers. The IPoIB WG discussed an issue and 
we came up with certain clarifications on the GIDs - these were included
in the draft. To illustrate the discussion further a few examples - clearly
stated as examples are provided. These do not preclude any future RFC 
from being followed and the draft states so.  Your draft when it becomes
an RFC will also not preclude RFC2131 client-identifier uses. Therefore they 
should be able to move in parallel.

I hope the above explains why a dependency appears uncalled for. 

PS. when you reply please do not snip away the contents -- I prefer to see
the full context of the response as I choose not to keep every response 
in the thread.

> up for my own personal satisfaction.   

:)I'd hope so.. 

The language in your draft 
> conflict, but ultimately the right thing to do is to simply remove the 

You confuse me...a while back you had accepted that I'll make it 
clearer than it is now that there are other methods to create client-ids.
I was fully convinced we had resolved the issue :).

Vivek