Subject: [dhcwg] RE: DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" list re. RFC 3942

From: [email-masked]
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 13:04:12 -0400

Hello Michelle / IANA folks, Bernie, 

First, thanks for the confirmation.  Much appreciated. 

Re the I-D, I have already submitted this, as 
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-blatherwick-dhc-mitel-site-options-usage-00.txt 

Is there another step needed at this point in time?   I note that it did 
not get announced to the DHC WG, as requested when sent for posting. 

BTW, we do not currently intend to try to standardize these, merely ensure 
they get on the Tentatively Assigned list.  (This could change of course.) 

Regards, and thanks again, 
Peter Blatherwick
Sr. Solutions Architect, 
Mitel Networks 

"IANA" <[email-masked]>
21.06.05 11:07

        To:     <[email-masked]>, <[email-masked]>
        cc: 
        Subject:        RE: DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively Assigned" 
list re. RFC 3942

Peter,
 
We apologize for the delay in responding.
The below options have been marked as tentatively assigned.

See: http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters

According to RFC 3942 they will need to be documented.  See the 
IANA Considerations section 6, part 2:

2. receive notices from vendors that have been using one or more of
      the options in the 128-223 range that they are using the option
      and are willing to document that usage.  IANA will list these
      options as "Tentatively Assigned".

Also section 4, part 4 of the document:

   4. For those options in the "Tentatively Assigned" state, vendors
      have 18 months following this RFC's publication date to submit an
      Internet-Draft documenting the option.  The documented usage MUST
      be consistent with the existing usage.  When the option usage is
      published as an RFC, IANA will move the option to the "Assigned"
      state.

      If no Internet-Draft is published within the 18 months or should
      one of these Internet-Drafts expire after the 18 months, IANA will
      move the option to the "Unassigned" state, and the option may then
      be assigned to any new publicly defined options in accordance with
      [RFC2939].

Thank you, 

Michelle Cotton
IANA

________________________________

From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Thursday, May 19, 2005 11:10 AM
To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: DHCP options 128-135 in use -- please place on "Tentatively
Assigned" list re. RFC 3942

[ sorry, resend to add a subject for tracking...  please ignore previous ] 

Hello DHC WG and IANA, 

Regarding RFC 3942, this is to document our (Mitel Networks) use of DHCP
options 128-135 in the current vendor-specific range, and to request these
be placed on the "Tentatively Assigned"  list. 

Our usage is as follows.  All are related to configuration of IP Phones 
(and
similar devices) in a VoIP network. 

Option    Usage 
======    ===== 
128       TFPT Server IP address (for IP Phone - specific sw load) 
129       Call Server IP address 
130       Discrimination string (to identify vendor) 
131       Remote statistics server IP address 
132       802.1P VLAN ID 
133       802.1Q L2 Priority 
134       Diffserv Code Point 
135       HTTP Proxy for phone-specific applications 

Please confirm that these will go on the Tentatively Assigned list (or
perhaps some already are). 

Also, it is not completely clear whether an I-D documenting this same
information is or is not required.  We are currently looking at getting 
away
from this scheme, in favor of better defined / standardized 
vendor-specific
methods.  Given this, and the high likelihood of clashes over the same
options wanted for use by others, we do not currently intend to pursue
standardization of these options.  Is an I-D required to complete the
process of putting the options on the Tentatively Assigned list? 

While we're on it, is there already, or will there be, a definitive list 
of
all the options in Tentatively Assigned state? 

Regards, 
Peter Blatherwick 
Sr. Solutions Architect, 
Mitel Networks 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2005 10:40:16 -0700

On Jun 21, 2005, at 10:04 AM, [email-masked] wrote:
> Re the I-D, I have already submitted this, as http://www.ietf.org/ 
> internet-drafts/draft-blatherwick-dhc-mitel-site-options-usage-00.txt
> Is there another step needed at this point in time?   I note that  
> it did not get announced to the DHC WG, as requested when sent for  
> posting.
> BTW, we do not currently intend to try to standardize these, merely  
> ensure they get on the Tentatively Assigned list.  (This could  
> change of course.)

Ideally we should make it an informational RFC, shouldn't we?    
Otherwise we lose the information when the draft expires.