Subject: Re: WG Last Call for "DHCP Relay Agent Information Option" I-D

From: Bernie Volz <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 16:41:33 -0400

>Folks,
>
>I don't mind if the subnet mask option is moved to a separate draft.
>At the last IETF meeting, however, there was support both publicly and
>privately to keep it in. 
>
>Is there anyone in the WG who would OBJECT to removing subnet
>mask sub-option for the initial relay agent option draft?
>In particular, Bernie Volz, Mike Carney, and Kim Kinnear, could
>you respond and give your opinion? Can you live without the
>subnet mask sub-option in the initial draft?
>
>-mike

Mike:

I can certainly live without the option being in the draft. Though, I
don't have servere objections if it is left in. While I easily agree
with Ted that more description or discussion on its intended usage and
issues regarding it could be added, I feel what is there is clear. 

My areas of clarification are mostly around the server automatically
creating a scope; but this may be considered a server issue and thus may
be outside the scope of the draft/RFC.

I do have one issue with the document ... what should a DHCP server do
if it receives a RELAY AGENT option but the giaddr is 0? The document is
clear about what a relay agent should do, but not about what a server
itself should do. Is there any reason why a RELAY AGENT option would
appear with a giaddr of 0 (doesn't that imply that the CLIENT added it
and thus voids some of the assumptions).

You might also fix 10.0, the author's address. There is "DS" after this
on the title line.

Regards,

- Bernie Volz
  Process Software

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Feb 2000 01:45:23 -0500

> be outside the scope of the draft/RFC.

This is precisely the problem, Bernie - specifying server behaviour
does appear to be beyond the scope of the relay agent information
options draft, but this option does imply behaviour on the part of the
server, and to leave it unspecified is inappropriate.   To leave it
unspecified will likely cause major trouble in the future.

> issues regarding it could be added, I feel what is there is clear. 

Can you please boil this down to one of "yes, I want the draft left as
is," "I abstain," or "no, I want the draft changed?"   :'}

Thanks!

			       _MelloN_