Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

From: "Woundy, Richard" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 08:45:19 -0700

Ted,

I thought we were talking about the CCC sub-option numbering space, not the
relay information option sub-option numbering space.

I'm not even sure that I am advocating that CableLabs "own" the suboption
space...

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Friday, December 20, 2002 7:47 PM
To: Woundy, Richard
Cc: [email-masked]; Paul Duffy; 'Thomas Narten'
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

I was under the impression that allocation for DHCP relay agent 
suboptions was not predicated on getting a draft through last call.   
The rules you're quoting are for mainline DHCP options, which are in 
short supply.   No such problem exists for relay agent suboptions.

I can't claim to speak for the WG, but if there is no conflict in the 
options that were allocated in the CableLabs draft, I don't see any 
reason why we'd want to change the numbers.

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 14:16:40 -0600

> relay information option sub-option numbering space.

D'oh, sorry.   The point is still the same - we do not need as 
draconian a standard as we have for DHCP options.   WG consensus that 
the suboption is okay should be enough to allow assignment of a code - 
that is, we don't have to agree on the exact final wording of the RFC 
before you get a code.