Subject: RE: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-07.txt

From: "Kostur, Andre" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Mar 2004 14:23:12 -0800

Questions:

Section 6.2:

      o The Parameter Request List option (option 55) SHOULD be set to
        the options of interest to the requester.  The interesting
        options are likely to include the IP Address Lease Time option
        (option 51), the Relay Agent Information option (option 82) and
        possibly the Vendor class identifier option (option 60).  In the
        absence of a Parameter Request List option, the server SHOULD
        return the same options it would return for a DHCPREQUEST
        message which didn't contain a DHCPLEASEQUERY message, which
        includes those mandated by [RFC 2131, Section 4.3.1] as well as
        any options which the server was configured to always return to
        a client.

Curious why this particular clause got added.  Under the previous drafts,
the client asked for whatever options they were interested in, and that's
that.  With this, the Leasequery would be answering with possibly a whole
bunch of extra stuff.  I don't see why this shouldn't be a MUST (as in, the
requestor MUST supply a Parameter Request List for the options that it is
interested in.  With no request list, the reqestor would get the
Active/Unassigned/Unknown indication and CHADDR, but that's it).

Section 6.4:

      o DHCPUNIMPLEMENTED

        The DHCPUNIMPLEMENTED response to the DHCPLEASEQUERY message
        indicates that DHCPLEASEQUERY is not implemented by this DHCP
        server.

        The DHCPUNIMPLEMENTED message can apply to any unimplemented
        messages, and MAY be used to respond to messages other than
        DHCPLEASEQUERY.

Since according to this draft, all servers are required to implement all
three query types, why is DHCPUNIMPLEMENTED listed in here?  Shouldn't that
be it's own draft, since it no longer has anything to do with leasequery
(directly)?