Subject: "Sunsetting" options

From: Nathan Lane <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Jun 2000 17:00:58 -0500

> At 02:33 PM 6/9/00 -0700, Barr Hibbs wrote:
> 
> >changes:
> >========
> >
> >Is it appropriate to institute a "sunset" rule for option codes?
> 
> Interesting idea - what are you trying to accomplish?
> 
> I don't think it's likely that we can reuse the option codes (well,
> maybe the 'Impress server option') once they've leaked out into
> installed clients.  There will likely *always* be some client out
> there that continues to use an option past its sunset date.
> 
> - Ralph
	[Nathan Lane]  Barr and I discussed this awhile back and I had the
same objection that there will always be some client, somewhere.  I
understand the "end of life" statement of the manufacturers of the
equipment, but some contracts state EOL can never happen until certain
conditions are met such as decomissioning all devices in a large
enterprise...which would go long past the "public EOL" on a product and make
integration more difficult.

	Let me say, though, I like the idea technically.

	btw - whatever happened to the removal of options that had no RFC to
back them up?  Anybody ever coordinate that one?

	-Nathan Lane

**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential
and intended solely for the individual or entity to 
whom they are addressed.  If you have received this email 
in error please notify the Wal-Mart E-mail administrator at
" [email-masked] ".
**********************************************************************

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 08:46:10 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On
> Behalf Of Nathan Lane
> Sent: Friday, June 09, 2000 3:01 PM

> back them up?  Anybody ever coordinate that one?

Good memory, Nathan!  I have this nagging feeling that several of the DHCP
option codes may have been assigned by IANA as placeholders on direct
request from individuals or organizations.  While some, like Intel, made a
good-faith effort to inform the DHC WG of what they were doing with the "PXE
options" others appear to have been added without discussion.

Ralph: can we reopen the matter with IANA, identifying the requestor(s) for
option code assisgnments that did NOT originate either with the DHC WG or a
current RFC?

Nathan: I mentioned the Intel "PXE options" as an example of an organization
trying to coordinate with the DHC WG.  My best understanding of this
particular set of options is that Intel proposed, and IANA accepted a sunset
date on their use.  Maybe Mike Henry or Thomas Narten will correct any
misunderstanding I have about these options, but if my memory is correct,
there is a precedent for planned obsolescence of option codes.

--Barr

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 11:51:31 -0400

>option code assisgnments that did NOT originate either with the DHC WG or a

Yes.  I have a list of option codes that were assigned prior to the
publication of RFC 2489 and contact persons, some of whom
I've already been in touch with.  I will reopen this process and
develop a list of option codes that IANA can return to the pool
of available option codes.

- Ralph

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 10:46:27 -0700

> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2000 8:52 AM
> >
...great!!!  Thanks, Ralph!

--Barr

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 07:17:44 -0400

> > back them up?  Anybody ever coordinate that one?

The best you can do is ask the owner of the allocated option code if
they would give it back. If they don't agree, or don't respond, there
is no way of knowing whether the code point is actually being used. If
you don't know for sure it is not being used (i.e., you don't know for
sure that it is NOT deployed somewhere in some implementation), do you
*really* want *your* new option to reuse that value?

Thomas