Subject: Confirmation of rough consensus

From: Steve Hanna <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1998 16:51:32 -0500 (EST)

I would like to confirm that we have reached rough consensus on the following 
decisions regarding MDHCP. These decisions were agreed to at the malloc working 
group meeting in Orlando (12/10/98). If you would like to raise any issues 
regarding them, please do so now.

Thanks,

Steve Hanna

-----------

1) Remove reserved fields and add version in header
2) Add security based on IPsec
3) Make option type and length two bytes long
4) Remove references to allocation scope
5) Add IPv6 support via address type fields
6) Renumber options to start with 1
7) Change name to something other than MDHCP

---

From: "Dimitri Krinos" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 12:38:01 -0500

I don't agree that the name of MDHCP should be changed just because the
protocol is diverging from DHCP.

Multicast Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol is a functional description
and IMHO does not need to imply a technical similarity to the DHC Protocol.

So far, all the suggestions I have seen for new names do not properly
convey a clear functional description like MDHCP does.  When you remove the
words DYNAMIC, HOST, and CONFIGURATION, you lose important meaning.
Changing the name just for the sake of changing the name will end up with
an acronym that is confusing and non-informative.

I'll bet that if the name is changed, people will still use MDHCP to
desribe the protocol anyway since there is so much familiarity with DHCP now.

There's my two cents worth...

Regards & Happy Holidays,
Dimitri Krinos

---

From: Roger Kermode-ARK008 <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1998 13:02:02 -0600

Given that MDHCP

 1) is all about hosts obtaining one or multicast addresses from a server,
 2) is not about configuring a host, but a session or sessions that run on
    the host, and
 3) is no longer syntactically equivalent with DHCP

I think it appropriate to change the name to sonmething other than MDHCP.

Like Mark I have reservations about adopting MAAP because it causes
confusion with the AAP servers. For want of a better alternative I think we
should go with Multicast Address Reservation Protocol (MARP)

I have no objections to the other 6 items put forward.

cheers,

Roger

--
Dr. Roger Kermode
[email-masked]                                tel : +1 847 538 4587
Digital Technology Research Laboratory              fax : +1 847 538 4593
Motorola, 1301 East Algonquin Rd, MS IL02-2712, Schaumburg, IL 60196 USA