Subject: Re: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 23:31:06 -0400

Thomas,

I've published draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-04.txt, which
includes the changes agreed to below.  Please announce an
IETF last call on the document.

Michael Johnston has published "DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment
Suboptions" <draft-johnston-pxe-options-00.txt>, which documents
the three PXE options.  I've set aside a slot in the dhc WG meeting
in Vienna for discussion of the details of this document and next
steps for the PXE options.

- Ralph

=====

At 11:59 AM 6/24/2003 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:
>The WG has asked that this document be advanced as an informational
>RFC.
>
>Seems like an IETF Last Call on this document would be appropriate,
>since the point is (in some sense) to verify that it is OK to reuse
>the listed options for something else. Right?

I agree that it would be useful to collect input from the entire
IETF through an IETF last call.

>My comments (all nits, I think).
>
> > Unused DHCP Option Codes
>
>A more descriptive title might be better? E.g.:
>
>   Reclaiming Unused DHCP Option Codes for Reassignment for Future DHCP
>   Options.
>
>(or something similar)

OK.

> >    The following option codes are used in the "Preboot Execution
> >    Environment (PXE) Specification, Version 2.1" [4].  However, although
> >    these options are in widespread use by devices that use PXE, none of
> >    these option codes have been specified as a Standards-track RFC.
>
>remove mention of standards track (since this is not required?) I.e.,
>just getting them published as RFCs would be good.

OK.

> > 3.1 Client System
> >
> >    Code:              93
> >
> >    Name:              Client System
> >
> >    Defined in:        (none)
>
>Shouldn't you reference the PXE documents here? (ditto for remaining
>PXE ones).
>
>Also, including the contact information in the option description
>struck me a bit odd. As I was reading this, my first thought was "has
>this person been contacted, and what did they say?" The document could
>include an indication of this.

OK.

> > Normative References
>
>Hmm. Aren't all of the references actually informative? Which ones are
>critical to *this* document?

I think at least this ref is normative:

    [1]  Assigned Numbers Editor, IANA., "BOOTP and DHCP Parameters",
         http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters,
         February 2003.

And this ref gives the definition of the PXE options, and should
be normative:

    [4]  Intel Corporation, , "Preboot Execution Environment (PXE)
         Specification Version 2.1",
         http://www.pix.net/software/pxeboot/archive/pxespec.pdf,
         September 1999.

This ref is arguably normative as it defines a potential use
for two of the options under review:

    [5]  Volz, B., Droms, R. and T. Lemon, "Extending DHCP Options
         Codes", draft-volz-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt (work in
         progress), September 2000.

- Ralph

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

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