Subject: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 08:49:38 -0500

As we have been asked to expedite our review of these drafts for the
upcoming 3GPP2 standard, we need to have a WG last call on both drafts.  If
there are no objections, I will start a last call for each draft starting
2005-02-07.

- Ralph

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

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 09:38:42 -0500

You know, I am still a bit confused about these drafts...

Do you (Ralph and Stig) actually think that there is appropriate 
expertise in the DHCP WG to review these drafts?  If not, where is 
the group that actually needs these options (the subject matter 
experts) and have they reviewed the drafts?

I realize that 3GPP wants DHCP options to configure BCMCV (whatever 
that is), but that doesn' t mean (IMO) that we can or should 
completely bypass the usual DHCP WG process...

Margaret

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 09:43:27 -0500

Margaret - these drafts are sort of falling into a crack.  I don't know of
another WG that can evaluate the requirements.  The information and option
format is trivial and the WG can review them.  The WG responded to 3GPP2 to
prefer VIVSO, and 3GPP2 came back to express preference for RFC 2132-style
options.  The dhc WG chairs have not been able to get any additional
justification from 3GPP2, and we have been getting pressure to move forward
quickly.  Seems at this point a WG last call is a good way to "call the
question" and get the discussion started so the various issues can be aired.

- Ralph

At 09:38 AM 2/3/2005 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>Do you (Ralph and Stig) actually think that there is appropriate expertise 
>in the DHCP WG to review these drafts?  If not, where is the group that 
>actually needs these options (the subject matter experts) and have they 
>reviewed the drafts?
>
>I realize that 3GPP wants DHCP options to configure BCMCV (whatever that 
>is), but that doesn' t mean (IMO) that we can or should completely bypass 
>the usual DHCP WG process...
>
>Margaret
>
>

---

From: Parviz Yegani <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 12:59:46 -0800

At 09:43 AM 2/3/2005 -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
>format is trivial and the WG can review them.

Agree, the options defined in these two drafts are no different from any other
DHCP options introduced so far.

>The WG responded to 3GPP2 to
>options.

The 3GPP2 specification (to be published soon) is based on these drafts. 
Adopting
these options will have minimal (or no) impact on current implementations. 
I'm not sure
if there is any advantage on pursuing the VIVSO approach from a deployment 
perspective.

>The dhc WG chairs have not been able to get any additional

What additional justification you need from 3GPP2 given that the proposed 
options
have minimal impact on the current implementations plus it's in line with 
other DHCP
extensions. These are used for broadcast/multicast services which are 
currently being
standardized by other SDOs like 3GPP and OMA.

-Parviz

>>expertise in the DHCP WG to review these drafts?  If not, where is the 
>>group that actually needs these options (the subject matter experts) and 
>>have they reviewed the drafts?
>>

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 16:35:06 -0500

> question" and get the discussion started so the various issues can

In terms of 3GPP2's preference for 2132-style options, doesn't it come
down to ease of deployability?  RFC 3925 is not yet widely
implemented/deployed, if at all. Do deploying/using the VIVSO option
is more complicated, and may require server upgrades.

2132-style options can clearly deployed today, using  existing
(already deployed) servers.

Is this the essence of the debate?

Thomas

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2005 14:23:37 -0800 (PST)

Thomas - you've summarized the argument in favor of an RFC 2132-style
option.  I posted a precis of all the issues in the discussion here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg04457.html

- Ralph

---

From: AC Mahendran <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:41:13 -0800

I agree with Parviz that using the VIVSO options is complicated and 
requires upgrades to existing DHCP servers. Since wireless carriers want to 
deploy these broadcast services soon, 3GPP2's preference is to use RFC 
2132-style options.

Thanks,
AC

At 12:59 PM 2/3/2005, Parviz Yegani wrote:
>>>is), but that doesn' t mean (IMO) that we can or should completely 
>>>bypass the usual DHCP WG process...
>>>
>>>Margaret
>>>
>>>