Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

From: Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:40:28 -0700

>If I change MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT, will this answer your objection?

In my original mail, I proposed text using the word "MAY". I still think 
that's the right wording.

I notice an amusing symmetry here:

I write a DHCP client, and would like it to request both options, but I 
expect server administrators will usually configure their servers to 
return only one or the other, as appropriate for the particular site.

Ted writes a DHCP server, and would like it to be configured with data 
for both options, but expects client administrators to configure their 
clients to only request one or the other, as appropriate for the 
particular site.

No editorial comment here. I'm just wondering if we're both looking at 
the same problem from opposite sides, and each wanting the other side to 
be the one making the decision. (However, if we do pursue this line of 
reasoning, I'd argue that site-specific configuration belongs in the 
server, not the client.)

Stuart Cheshire <[email-masked]>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 13:32:41 -0400

> clients to only request one or the other, as appropriate for the 

There is actually a good reason to put complexity in the client - it
distributes the work more fairly.  If you do the work on the server,
the workload increases by O(n), where n is the number of clients.
If you do it on the client, each client's workload increases by O(1).

I think in this case, with your proposed changes, there is no
additional workload for the server, so I'm happy to leave it that
way.   But as a general rule, when we are making decisions like this,
I think if we *can* push the work to the client, we should.

BTW, I am both a client and a server implementor - I am very fond of
the ISC DHCP client, which I use constantly as I roam from network to
network.  :')

			       _MelloN_