Subject: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:46:04 -0400

This message announces a WG last call on "DHCP Preboot eXecution Environment
(PXE) Suboptions" <draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt>.  The last call will
conclude at 5PM ET on Friday, 10/24/2003.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.

draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt documents three DHCP options that are in
common use by PXE.  These options uniquely identify booting client machines
and their pre-OS runtime environment so the DHCP and/or PXE boot server can
return the correct OS bootstrap image (or pre-boot application) name and
server to the client. This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt

- Ralph Droms 

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

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2003 20:31:08 -0400

While I otherwise support this draft and would like to see it advance, I
would request that the use of "suboption" be changed to "option". In common
usage within DHCP, if an option can carry multiple tuples of data, these are
referred to as suboptions and it would be good not to confuse this
terminology (this draft talks of options, not suboptions). Thus, all
instances of 'suboption' / 'suboptions' in the draft should be replaced with
'option' / 'options'.

Do we also need some language in the introduction section that clearly
indicates that these options are in wide use as defined by the PXE
specification [reference 4 in the draft] and are being documented in this
draft for completeness within the IETF?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: Monday, October 13, 2003 8:46 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-00.txt

- Ralph Droms

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 25 Oct 2003 15:25:26 -0700

So busy getting my own draft out this week that I missed these last call
deadlines...  *sigh*

I support advancing this draft subject to Bernie's recommended alignment
of terminology, Josh's suggestion that the Intel PXE specifications be
published as an informational RFC, Bernie's recommendation that any
option(s) used for PXE in the range 128-254 be adequately documented, and
my one nit:

  o  this draft should be categorized as "standards-track" or
"informational"

--Barr

---

From: Michael Johnston <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2003 20:59:37 GMT

Here is the updated DHCP PXE options draft.
I hope I got in all of the requested changes. 

%%michael