Subject: [dhcwg] EXTENDED: mip4 and dhc WG joint last call on draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 06:17:40 -0400

There has been no response to this WG last call, so the deadline will be
extended to 1700EDT, 07/05/07.

=====
This message announces a joint WG last call for the mip4 and dhc WGs
on "Mobile IPv4 Extension for Configuration Options Exchange"
<draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt>.  The last call will conclude at
1700EDT, Monday, 06/25/07.

The dhc WG is asked to review the use of DHCP options in this draft to
pass configuration information to a mobile node.

Please respond to this joint WG last call.  Responses may be sent to
either [email-masked] or [email-masked].  If you support acceptance of
the document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so
that support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion
does not represent positive support.  If there is no expression of
support for acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not
be advanced to the IESG.

draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt describes the mechanism for providing
the host configuration information during Mobile IP registration.  One
or more Configuration Options Exchange Extensions may be included in
the registration message to provide the Mobile Node the configuration
parameters needed for network service (e.g.  DNS).  This draft is
available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt

- Stig Venaas, Ralph Droms
  dhc WG chairs

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

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 28 Jun 2007 08:48:15 -0700

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt

   This document defines a new extension that can be used to carry
   configuration parameters from the Foreign Agent and/or Home Agent
   during Mobile IPv4 registration.  This configuration parameters
   include DHCP option (Parameter Request List) defined in [RFC2132].

The last sentence reads funny.  May I suggest;

   The extension supports the use of multiple configuration parameter
   formats, and this document defines one such format: the use of
   standard DHCP Options [RFC2132].

This bit;

   The Mobile Node may request values for specific configuration
   parameters from the Home Agent and/or Foreign Agent by including the
   'Parameter Request List' option (defined in [RFC2132]) in the
   Registration Request.  The list of requested parameters is specified
   as a string of octets, where each octet is a valid DHCP option code
   as defined in [RFC2132].  If this extension is included in the

Suggests that you can only draw from RFC2132 for DHCP options within
this space.  It also tersely (re)defines the Parameter Request List's
format...a pet peeve of mine.  Reminding the use is probably useful,
but for the 'string of octets' that should really refer to 2132 (and
its updates).

Also, s/may/MAY/?

   The Mobile Node MAY request values for specific configuration
   parameters from the Home Agent and/or Foreign Agent by including the
   Parameter Request List Option [RFC2132] in the Registration Request.
   If the Mobile Node does include a Parameter Request List, it MUST
   list the DHCP Option Code of each option it desires configuration
   parameters for.  The Home Agent will only include parameters that
   appear on the Parameter Request List.

But I'm not a MIP guy so maybe that should be Foreign Agent?

The ascii art in Figure 3 appears to be wrong.  Or I can't figure
it out.  Why are the subsequent ascii art figures using different
terminology ("Ent" and "DHCP" or "Ent" and "Rsv") than the first
figure, which defines the fields as "Entity-Type" and "Sub-Type"?

It took me quite awhile to realize what I was looking at - I thought
these were all different protocols or different messages!

I think this draft is very nearly ready for the IESG, but I think
at least the ascii art bits need to be smoothed out.  The wording
bits I've suggested are pretty minor.

-- 
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: "Ahmad Muhanna" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 07:51:09 -0500

I support advancing this draft to an RFC.

Regards,
Ahmad

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 5:18 AM
> To: [email-masked]; DHC WG
> Subject: [dhcwg] EXTENDED: mip4 and dhc WG joint last call on 
> draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt
> 
> There has been no response to this WG last call, so the 
> deadline will be extended to 1700EDT, 07/05/07.
> 
> =====
> This message announces a joint WG last call for the mip4 and 
> dhc WGs on "Mobile IPv4 Extension for Configuration Options Exchange"
> <draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt>.  The last call will 
> conclude at 1700EDT, Monday, 06/25/07.
> 
> The dhc WG is asked to review the use of DHCP options in this 
> draft to pass configuration information to a mobile node.
> 
> Please respond to this joint WG last call.  Responses may be 
> sent to either [email-masked] or [email-masked].  If you 
> support acceptance of the document without change, respond 
> with a simple acknowledgment, so that support for the 
> document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not 
> represent positive support.  If there is no expression of 
> support for acceptance during the WG last call, the document 
> will not be advanced to the IESG.
> 
> draft-ietf-mip4-gen-ext-03.txt describes the mechanism for 
> providing the host configuration information during Mobile IP 
> registration.  One or more Configuration Options Exchange 
> Extensions may be included in the registration message to 
> provide the Mobile Node the configuration parameters needed 
> for network service (e.g.  DNS).  This draft is available as

---

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 29 Jun 2007 16:18:40 -0400

Ralph, et al:

This document only references DHCP and does not alter or extend it, so I
see no strong need for wide review by the DHC WG.

One suggestion is to add the "Note that DHCP option codes (OpCode)
referenced by this document are defined in [RFC2132].", that is in the
IANA Considerations, earlier because the IANA Considerations are usually
dropped when the RFC is produced. So, this might get lost (and isn't
really an IANA Considerations issue anyway).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
Sent: Thursday, June 28, 2007 6:18 AM
To: [email-masked]; DHC WG
Subject: [dhcwg] EXTENDED: mip4 and dhc WG joint last call on

=====