Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-09 issue with sub-option bouncing

From: Alfred Hönes <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2009 21:06:50 +0100 (MEZ)

Folks,

At Tue, 27 Jan 2009 15:02:28 -0500 , Kim Kinnear
sent a message to the DHCWG list:
  http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg09581.html
once more trying to solicit feedback on my previous (Dec 23, 2008)
elaborations archived in:
  http://www.IETF.ORG/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg09414.html

I had responded off-list, but wanted to wait for some short period
of time to give other folks the chance to enter the discussion
without being prjudiced by my personal point-of-view.

Since nobody did, I want to close up the topic, and restate
the significant part of my recent remarks on-list.

> ...
>
> So, I'm trying a second time to elicit some response from the
> list as well as feedback from you.
>
> Options:
>
>         (a) Draft is acceptable as is.
>
>         (b) Add more words to ensure that people know that they
>             need to use a DHCP server which supports VSS options
>             if they configure VSS options in a relay agent.
>
>         (c) Implement Alfred's proposal to define a new range of
>             type bytes and specify how they are used so that a
>             relay agent knows for sure whether a DHCP server
>             supports the VSS option when it is used.
>
> Thanks all -- Kim

Kim,
Your previous words already were in favor of (b), and that's what
I also felt was advocated a bit on the list.

If you're sure that admins will take enough care, indeed my strawman
protocol extension proposal might not be needed (c), and I certainly
can live very well with (b) in that case.  Apparently, I would not
have made the proposal if I were in support of (a).

Since you have indicated the need for this solution comes from
scenarios that are well managed and ready to implement it as it
stands, we should add the proposed notes to the draft to warn
others that might become interested later, but otherwise go ahead.

So, I confirm agreement to (b).

Thus, since nobody opposed, I guess the chairs will be able to
determine (almost silent) rough consensus on (b).

Kind regards,
  Alfred Hönes.

-- 

+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+
| TR-Sys Alfred Hoenes   |  Alfred Hoenes   Dipl.-Math., Dipl.-Phys.  |
| Gerlinger Strasse 12   |  Phone: (+49)7156/9635-0, Fax: -18         |
| D-71254  Ditzingen     |  E-Mail:  [email-masked]                     |
+------------------------+--------------------------------------------+

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

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2009 15:42:03 -0500

Alfred,

Thanks for closing on this issue.  I'll issue a new version
with the clarifying text as well as resolution of your other
editorial comments.

Thanks again -- Kim

At 03:06 PM 2/2/2009, Alfred =?hp-roman8?B?SM5uZXM=?= wrote:
>  Alfred HÎnes.