Subject: RE: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-options-cont-01.txt

From: "Kostur, Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 10:54:01 -0800

On a somewhat related note, do the order of DHCP options within a DHCP
packet matter?

As for the topic at hand, I'd voice my support for merely specifying the
DHCP option multiple times and concatenate the results to get the final
large option.  Besides, I somehow recall that one of the NDS options does
exactly this.  OK, I just looked it up, and.. see RFC 2241, page 3.  And,
looking at it a little closer, it refers back into the DHCP RFC regarging
overlarge options.  See RFC 2131, page 24.  Are we looking at specifying a
new RFC for something that's already covered in the existing RFC?  Or am I
missing some implementation detail that the new RFC covers?

-----Original Message-----
From: William A. Arbaugh [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 12, 2000 07:45
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-options-cont-01.txt 

On Wed, 12 Jan 2000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> ...
>  ... then why not just
> have those options specify that multiple occurrances of the same
> option should be concatenated?
> 

This is the behavior that Ted's code uses, and the right approach in my
opinion (rather than the continutation option).  I'm more than willing to
withdraw the option draft in favor of what Ted has proposed.  But, we need
to do something to support large options if we want to support public key
based authentication.

Bill

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2000 14:04:33 -0500

> On a somewhat related note, do the order of DHCP options within a DHCP

Not according to any standard of which I'm aware.   However, if two
options are to be concatenated, I suppose it does.

> See RFC 2131, page 24.

Actually, it's page 23, but I think the wording here is quite clear,
and you're right - this obviates the need for a continuation option.
I think we should drop this, and it sounds like you and Bill agree.

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2000 20:22:37 -0500

>I think we should drop this, and it sounds like you and Bill agree.

OK, we'll consider this draft to be no longer operative, and that text 
allowing multiple occurrences will be added to authentication options that 
require roe than 255 octets.

- Ralph