Subject: Re: [dhcwg] PXELinux.

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 5 Jul 2006 16:14:27 -0700

I'd like to ask that this document be accepted as a WG Item.

  http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhankins-pxelinux-01.txt

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "H. Peter Anvin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 05 Jul 2006 21:54:40 -0700

>   http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-dhankins-pxelinux-01.txt

I just re-read this item, and have a few notes:

1. The standard spelling is PXELINUX, all caps.  This is for historical
reasons, but has stuck around.

2. With regards to option 210: if this is adopted, it needs to be noted
for any new option if it is subject to having option 210 prepended or
not.  Option 209 *is* subject to 210.

3. There is an additional justification for option 210.  It does provide
a method to allow the administrator to let PXELINUX use the standard
discovery algorithm for the configuration file, but in a specific area
of the TFTP server.  It's thus, in addition to other things, a "softer"
form of the configuration file search option.

However, by far its most common use is really to select one of multiple
full configuration trees, as described in the document.

	-hpa

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Jul 2006 10:19:36 -0700

> reasons, but has stuck around.

I know 'PXE' and I know 'Linux', so I just glued those together.  The
document name has to be all lowercase, but I've updated my use of the
name within the document for consistency.

I also found one use of 'PXElinux'.

> form of the configuration file search option.

Good catch, thanks Peter.

I've revved the draft and provided clear language on server and client
behaviour expectations, incorporating (I think) these two points.

I've also fixed some typos and cleaned up the language about the parameter
request list.

Once the new rev is up on the i-d database, I'll ask again for that
rev to be taken on as a WG item.