Subject: [Capwap] DHCP Option Under-Specified

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Apr 2007 18:55:19 -0400

Hi All,

I have a few comments on the current CAPWAP protocol spec.  I don't  
think that any of these issues are blocking problems for IEEE review,  
or that they should stop us from going to WGLC, but I do think that  
they need to be resolved before our specs can go forward for  
approval.  I will include each of these issues in a separate message,  
starting with this one:

Section 3.2 of the base spec refers to a "DHCP code number".   There  
are several problems with this section, including:

(1) I think that this is talking about a DHCP option.  There isn't  
really anything called a "DHCP code number" or, as it is referred to  
in the IANA considerations section, a "DHCP code point".

(2) A comma-delimited ASCII text string is not the usual DHCP format  
for options that contain a list of servers.

(3) The information in this section is not sufficient to specify a  
new DHCP option.

See the following document for an example of how a DHCP option  
containing a list of servers has been specified in the past:

http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc4075.txt

(4) We probably need options for both DHCP and DHCPv6.

My suggestion is that we remove the text from the base document that  
attempts to define a new DHCP option, and we produce a document that  
properly defines a CAPWAP DHCP option and publish it separately.

Margaret

_________________________________________________________________
To unsubscribe or modify your subscription options, please visit:
http://lists.frascone.com/mailman/listinfo/capwap

Archives: http://lists.frascone.com/pipermail/capwap