Subject: WG last call for "DHCP Option to Disable Stateless

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 06:20:33 -0400 (EDT)

This is a WG last call for "DHCP Option to Disable Stateless
Auto-Configuration in IPv4 Clients" <draft-ietf-dhc-autoconfig-01.txt>.
Please respond to the [email-masked] mailing list with comments by
10/23/98.  If there are no comments, the draft will be submitted for
acceptance as a Proposed Standard.

- Ralph Droms

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 10:45:46 -0400 (EDT)

Blah.  It's late to bring this up, but I just read the draft for the
first time today.  I have one nit, and it's fairly minor: most DHCP
options that I know of currently use 0 for false and 1 for true.  The
Autoconfigure option uses 1 for false and 2 for true.  I'd really like
to see this normalized.  Right now, boolean options in the Internet
Software Consortium DHCP server can be configured like this:

	option boolean-foo true;

and

	option boolean-foo false;

This autoconfig option would have to be configured like this:

	option permit-auto-configuration 1;

or

	option permit-auto-configuration 2;

This seems like a fairly noticable inconsistency that we can safely do
without.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Mike Carney - SNT Internet Engineering <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:28:11 -0400 (EDT)

> 	option boolean-foo false;

Ouch. I agree with Ted. False is 0, True is 1.

Mike Carney
SNT Internet Engineering
Sun Microsystems, Inc.

---

From: Steve Gonczi <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1998 12:29:28 -0400 (EDT)

I have to agree with Ted Lemon. 
It would be much better to stick to using 0 for false and 1 for true.

Steve Gonczi @ PSC

> ----------
> From: 	Ralph Droms[SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Reply To: 	[email-masked]
> Sent: 	Thursday, October 15, 1998 6:24 AM
> To: 	Multiple recipients of list
> Subject: 	WG last call for "DHCP Option to Disable Stateless
>