Subject: [dhcwg] IETF-94 Follow-up - draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis - ORO (Ticket #81)

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 10 Nov 2015 02:14:59 +0000

Hi:

This is to confirm on the DHC WG mailing list our proposal to resolve the RFC3315bis ticket #81 (ORO) by updating RFC3315bis to handle the options specified in a client's ORO as follows (see http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/81 and https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/94/slides/slides-94-dhc-5.pdf for more details):

*       Protocol-required options MUST NOT appear in ORO
-      3315bis will enumerate options which MUST NOT appear in the ORO (i.e., Client ID, Server ID, ...)
-      Will request IANA to add a column in option registry
*       Other top-level options MUST appear in ORO or will not be sent by server
-      Slight change from RFC 3315, which allows the server to send extra options
-      Exception: options MAY be administratively configured to be sent on server
*       Only container options MUST appear in the ORO:
-      The server MUST send all options that are eligible to be encapsulated in that container, if that container option is requested
*       Those options that are only encapsulated in a container MUST NOT be in the ORO
*       Exception: The ORO can be used to signal support for a feature even when that option is encapsulated, as in the case of the Prefix Exclude option (RFC 6603)
-      However, this requires special processing by the server

If you want to comment on this (or ask for clarification), please respond by 11/23. The RFC3315bis team will otherwise update the draft as per the above.

Thanks.

-          Bernie