Subject: [dhcwg] AD review of draft-ietf-dhc-unused-optioncodes-03.txt

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Jun 2003 11:59:30 -0400

The WG has asked that this document be advanced as an informational
RFC.

Seems like an IETF Last Call on this document would be appropriate,
since the point is (in some sense) to verify that it is OK to reuse
the listed options for something else. Right?

My comments (all nits, I think).

> Unused DHCP Option Codes

A more descriptive title might be better? E.g.:

  Reclaiming Unused DHCP Option Codes for Reassignment for Future DHCP
  Options.

(or something similar)
  
>    The following option codes are used in the "Preboot Execution
>    Environment (PXE) Specification, Version 2.1" [4].  However, although
>    these options are in widespread use by devices that use PXE, none of
>    these option codes have been specified as a Standards-track RFC.

remove mention of standards track (since this is not required?) I.e.,
just getting them published as RFCs would be good..

> 3.1 Client System
>    Code:              93
>    Name:              Client System
>    Defined in:        (none)

Shouldn't you reference the PXE documents here? (ditto for remaining
PXE ones).

Also, including the contact information in the option description
struck me a bit odd. As I was reading this, my first thought was "has
this person been contacted, and what did they say?" The document could
include an indication of this.

> Normative References

Hmm. Aren't all of the references actually informative? Which ones are
critical to *this* document?

Thomas

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Jun 2003 16:42:42 -0400

>the listed options for something else. Right?

I agree that it would be useful to collect input from the entire
IETF through an IETF last call.

>   Reclaiming Unused DHCP Option Codes for Reassignment for Future DHCP

OK.

>just getting them published as RFCs would be good.

OK.

>include an indication of this.

OK.

>critical to *this* document?

I think at least this ref is normative:

    [1]  Assigned Numbers Editor, IANA., "BOOTP and DHCP Parameters",
         http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters,
         February 2003.

And this ref gives the definition of the PXE options, and should
be normative:

    [4]  Intel Corporation, , "Preboot Execution Environment (PXE)
         Specification Version 2.1",
         http://www.pix.net/software/pxeboot/archive/pxespec.pdf,
         September 1999.

This ref is arguably normative as it defines a potential use
for two of the options under review:

    [5]  Volz, B., Droms, R. and T. Lemon, "Extending DHCP Options
         Codes", draft-volz-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt (work in
         progress), September 2000.

- Ralph