Subject: draft-ietf-dhc-agent-vpn-id-00.txt and -dhc-vpn-option-00.txt

From: "Kostur, Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 13:11:32 -0700

These two Drafts don't agree on what should happen if both the option and
the sub-option are specified.  dhc-agnet-vpn-id says MUST (p. 5) and
dhc-vpn-option says SHOULD (p. 3).  These two drafts should have the same
term for this... :)

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001 17:31:20 -0400

I hate it when that happens...

We'll try to get it together next time around.

So does anyone have a strong opinion?

I think it should be MUST, as I cannot imagine a useful situation
where the relay agent would not be more "trusted" to know the vpn
information than the client itself, but ...  now that I think
about it, I suppose a DHCP proxy on a VPN could want to allocate
IP addresses on another VPN (or not on a VPN at all) in order to
satisfy other clients.

That would seem to say that SHOULD would be more appropriate.

It also points up that there is no value for the vpn-id sub-option
which could be used to specify the default or global vpn (i.e.,
no vpn).  No option doesn't exactly indicate the global VPN if
you get competition between a client and a relay agent.

While I would be surprised if this "dueling vpn-id" stuff ever
really amounts to much in practice, I think we could:

  1.  Fix both drafts to say the relay agent vpn-id SHOULD take
  precedence over the normal vpn-id option if they both appear.

  2.  Enhance the option definition value of both of the options
  to allow specification of "no" vpn, and specify that this would
  be used when there was a possibility of conflict.

Comments?

Cheers -- Kim

At 01:11 PM 7/25/2001 -0700, Kostur, Andre wrote:

>These two Drafts don't agree on what should happen if both the option and the sub-option are specified.  dhc-agnet-vpn-id says MUST (p. 5) and dhc-vpn-option says SHOULD (p. 3).  These two drafts should have the same term for this... :)