Subject: [dhcwg] Questions on draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:16:22 -0400

Hi,

I read draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 as a possible consumer 
(writing a draft about a new DHCPv6 option). I have two questions...

1. The draft doesn't talk about options with size zero. Are they good or 
evil? I would have expected a subsection of section 5 to talk about 
them. There's one in RFC3315: OPTION_RAPID_COMMIT.

2. Section 14 contains the following:

    It is a frequent mistake of option draft authors, then, to create
    text that implies that a server will simply provide the new option,
    and clients will digest it.  Generally, it's best to also specify
    that clients MUST place the new option code on the relevant list
    option, clients MAY include the new option in their packets to
    servers with hints as to values they desire, and servers MAY respond
    with the option contents (if they have been so configured).

I can't parse the second sentence. What should I write in my draft? I 
guess it should start with "Clients MUST place the new option code ..." 
but I can't finish the sentence. What's the relevant list option? (My 
new option has no value, as you might have guessed.)

Other than that, everything was clear.

Thanks,
Simon
-- 
DTN made easy, lean, and smart --> http://postellation.viagenie.ca
NAT64/DNS64 open-source        --> http://ecdysis.viagenie.ca
STUN/TURN server               --> http://numb.viagenie.ca

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:26:49 -0400

We have zero-length option for both v4 (rfc 4039) and v6 (3315) rapid commit. So something should be said to allow these.

Regarding that text, it means for v4 client must include option code in Parameter Request List option (55) and for v6 in the Option Request Option (oro). While I can understand the shorthand, this is one area where the document best be explicit!!

- Bernie

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 19, 2012, at 10:16 AM, "Simon Perreault" <[email-masked]> wrote:

> Hi,
> 
> I read draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-08 as a possible consumer (writing a draft about a new DHCPv6 option). I have two questions...
> 
> 1. The draft doesn't talk about options with size zero. Are they good or evil? I would have expected a subsection of section 5 to talk about them. There's one in RFC3315: OPTION_RAPID_COMMIT.
> 
> I can't parse the second sentence. What should I write in my draft? I guess it should start with "Clients MUST place the new option code ..." but I can't finish the sentence. What's the relevant list option? (My new option has no value, as you might have guessed.)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Simon Perreault <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2012 10:57:24 -0400

On 2012-06-19 10:26, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> We have zero-length option for both v4 (rfc 4039) and v6 (3315) rapid
> commit. So something should be said to allow these.
>
> Regarding that text, it means for v4 client must include option code
> in Parameter Request List option (55) and for v6 in the Option
> Request Option (oro). While I can understand the shorthand, this is
> one area where the document best be explicit!!

Thanks, much clearer.

But doesn't the draft only apply to DHCPv6?

Simon