Subject: [dhcwg] Accept <draft-rentschler-dhc-interface-opt-00.txt> as WG work item?

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Dec 2003 08:32:41 -0500

We have a request to accept draft-rentschler-dhc-interface-opt-00.txt as a WG
action item.  Here is the Abstract and an excerpt from the Introduction:

Abstract

    This draft defines a new option to inform the server about
    the client's physical interface it is connected to.
    This information may be used together with the relay agent
    information option (RFC 3046) for the purpose of topology
    recognition as well as for IP and other parameter assignment
    policies.

1. Introduction

    The relay agent information option [RFC 3046], which MAY be added by
    a relay agent to a client's request to the server, MAY contain a
    Circuit ID sub option that contains the number of the physical
    interface on which the relay received this client's request.

    When the client itself is a device with multiple interfaces
    (for example a Switching Hub), it would be of interest to know which
    of the client's interfaces is connected to the relay agent or the
    server. These informations together could then easily be used to
    detect and display the active topology of the underlying network.
    To get the information about the client's physical interface to
    the server, a new option has to be introduced.

Please respond to [email-masked] by 1/6/2004 with comments about this I-D
and whether the dhc WG should accept this I-D as a WG work item.  If there
are no objections, the default action will be for the dhc WG to accept the
I-D as a WG work item.

- Ralph

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 14:28:13 -0600

This draft is half-baked.   There is no discussion about how the option 
would actually be used, sufficient for the reader to figure out what to 
do with it.   It's not at all clear to me that the authors have thought 
through how it will be used, or that they have a solid understanding of 
how the DHCP protocol works in practice.   I am afraid that the option 
proposed in this draft actually can't be used in the way they think it 
can.   I'm not against having an option like this in principle, but 
based on what's been said in the draft, I don't see any point in making 
the draft a WG item - the draft simply doesn't make sense as written.

I would really encourage the authors to come to Seoul and spend some 
time talking to DHCWG members in person, to see if what they need 
actually makes sense, and to talk about how to make it happen.   I may 
be mistaken about the authors' level of experience with DHCP, but 
that's what comes across in the written document, and that's what we 
have to work with.   I think that any discussions at this point should 
be informal, and should happen outside of the actual working group 
session (perhaps before the session).   The reason for talking in 
person rather than over the internet is that often misunderstandings 
that can take weeks or months to resolve over email can be cleared up 
very quickly when the participants are able to interact face-to-face.

The bottom line is that as of now, I request that this draft not be 
adopted as a WG work item.

---

From: "Kevin A. Noll" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 22:41:54 -0500

I don't think this is worth considering. I'm not even sure what
the purpose of the proposed option is. It sounds suspiciously
similar to the Client Identifier, but I can't quite tell.

--kan--

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Monday, 29 December, 2003 8:33 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dhcwg] Accept <draft-rentschler-dhc-interface-opt-00.txt> as
> WG work item?
>
>
> We have a request to accept
> draft-rentschler-dhc-interface-opt-00.txt as a WG