Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 (resend to identify intended publication status)

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Feb 2007 15:48:38 -0500

This message announces a WG last call for comments on the publication of
"Subnet Allocation Option" <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt> as an
Informational RFC.  The last call will conclude at 0900EST on March 12,
2007.

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.  Lack of discussion does not
represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
to the IESG.

draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04 defines a DHCP option that is passed
between the DHCP Client and the DHCP Server to request dynamic
allocation of a subnet, give specifications of subnet(s) allocated,
and report usage statistics.  This memo documents the current
definition of this option (option code 220) in agreement with
RFC-3942, which declares that any pre-existing usages of option
numbers in the range 128 - 223 should be documented and the working
group will try to officially assign those numbers to those options.

Note that the Internet Draft <draft-shen-dhc-block-alloc-03>, "DHCP
Proxy Server Micro-block Allocation Scheme For IP Address Pool
Management," defines an address allocation mechanism that is related
to the subnet allocation mechanism in draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.

This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt

- Stig Venaas, Ralph Droms
  dhc WG chairs

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

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 27 Feb 2007 11:23:03 -0800

> support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not

I support acceptance without change.  I am not intimately familiar
with this use of this option so I can't speak to the accuracy of the
document, but I find the definitions contained within this draft
to be more than adequate information.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.	-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:01:50 -0500

The WG last call on the document "Subnet Allocation Option"
<draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt> indicates the intended publication
status as Informational.  That intended status was a mistake on my part.
This document was originally taken on as a dhc WG work item as a standards
track document and has been reviewed by the WG with that intended status in
mind.  The work predates the initiative defined in RFC 3942 to describe
existing uses of options with option codes in the range 128 to 223;
therefore, draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt should continue to be
considered for standards track publication.  Note that RFC 3942 itself is
silent on the publication status of any RFCs related to the initiative to
document the options using option codes in the range 128 to 223.

So, please respond to this WG last call for comments on the publication of
"Subnet Allocation Option" <draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04.txt> as a
Proposed Standard.  The last call will conclude at 0900EST on March 12,
2007.

- Ralph

---

From: "Templin, Fred L" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 28 Feb 2007 10:13:55 -0800

Last-call comment for the authors - maybe I missed
something, but in Section 4.1 of this document I see
no provision for the client to suggest to the server
specific IP subnet prefixes that it would prefer to
receive during the DISCOVER/OFFER/REQUEST/ACK exchange.

If the client knows in advance the specific IP subnet
prefixes it would prefer to receive, *and* has reason
to believe that the server would be willing to assign
them, why can't the client include the prefixes in
Subnet Allocation options in the DISCOVER message?

Thanks - Fred
[email-masked]  

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 7:02 AM
> To: dhcwg
> Cc: Mark Townsley (townsley); Stig Venaas
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on 
> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-04(resend to identify intended 
> publication status)
>