Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Review: 6rd DHCP option

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 2010 11:35:12 -0800

On Mon, Jan 18, 2010 at 12:50:13PM -0800, Behcet Sarikaya wrote:
>   Isn't it customary in IETF to have it separated in a draft that
> defines DHCP aspects of the solution?

I think it used to be the case that DHCP option assignment from IANA
was by DHC WG consensus alone, so they were made separate drafts that
were progressed as DHC WG items rather than as a WG item in the source
protocol's WG.

Today the options are progressed as the other-WG's items, and they
solicit us for feedback and we visit them to discuss the option.

I think either way is fine, and today it depends more on if the
protocol authors want to progress without finalizing a DHCP option
format (which may also be different authors), or if they plan on
seeing multiple different delivery mechanisms, or etc.

-- 
David W. Hankins	BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer		There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		http://bind10.isc.org/