Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Apr 2004 07:46:00 -0500

This message announces a WG last call on "Reclassifying DHCPv4 Options"
<draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00>.  The last call will conclude at 5PM
EST on 4/16/04.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.

draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00 revises RFC 2132 to reclassify DHCPv4
option codes 128 to 223 (decimal) as publicly defined options to be managed
by IANA in accordance with RFC 2939. This document directs IANA to make
these option codes available for assignment as publicly defined DHCP options
for future options..  This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00.txt

- Ralph Droms

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

---

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 2004 20:40:35 -0700

I support advancing this draft, to reclassify DHCPv4 options
in the range 128-223 as public, not private or
vendor-specific options.

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Monday, 05 April 2004 05:46
>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 08:37:39 -0400

This document reflects WG consensus on how to make more DHCP option codes
available to avoid exhaustion of the option code space.

Although there are known uses of option codes in the range 128-254 (both
documented and undocumented), the procedure described in this document
provides a way to avoid clashes in the use of reclassified options.

Editorial suggestions and comments:

The references should be listed as Normative and Informative.

Section 3, change the first sentence to: "The DHCP option space (0-255) is
divided into two ranges [RFC2132]:"

Reference [unused-optioncodes] has been published as RFC 3679.

The document should include boilerplate from RFC 3667 when it is revised.

---

From: "Kevin A. Noll" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:11:42 -0400

I support moving this ahead.

--kan--

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Monday, 05 April, 2004 8:46 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
> draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00
>
>

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:55:49 -0400

Ralph:

Thanks for the comments and I've got the updated version ready to go -
but will wait for additional comments during the WG Last Call.

Reminder to WG: this document and several others are in last call which
ends 5PM EST on 4/16/04.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Thursday, April 08, 2004 8:38 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-reclassify-options-00

This document reflects WG consensus on how to make more DHCP option
codes available to avoid exhaustion of the option code space.

Section 3, change the first sentence to: "The DHCP option space (0-255)
is divided into two ranges [RFC2132]:"

The document should include boilerplate from RFC 3667 when it is
revised.