Subject: RE: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-0 1.txt

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2003 14:59:54 -0600

I fully support the approval of this document for publication.

However, I would recommend we review the following section:

8. Appearance of these option

   The NIS servers, NIS+ servers, NIS domain name and NIS+ domain name 
   options MUST appear only in the following messages: Solicit, 
   Advertise, Request, Confirm, Renew, Rebind, Information-Request, 
   Reply.

Based on earlier text, these options are for the server to convey information
to clients and therefore perhaps text as follows is more appropriate:

   The NIS servers, NIS+ servers, NIS domain name and NIS+ domain name 
   options MUST appear only in the Advertise and Reply messages. The
   option numbers for these options may appear in the Option Request
   Option [2] in Solicit, Request, Renew, Rebind, Information-Request,
   and Reconfigure messages.

Or, we want a client to send these options in Request, Renew, Rebind to
a server as well?

In any case, there is little need for this option itself in Solicit and
Confirm (based on the original text). And, some mention of use of the
ORO option (at least in Reconfigure) may be appropriate?

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt

This message announces a WG last call on "NIS Configuration Options
for DHCPv6" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt>.  The last call
will conclude on Friday, 2/28.

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt specifies four DHCPv6 options
for configuration information related to Network Information Service
(NIS).  This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt

- Ralph Droms

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

---

From: "Vijayabhaskar A K" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 18:05:50 +0530

Bernie,
Thanks for your comments....
See my reply inline, prefixed by VJ.
~Vijay

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]]On Behalf Of Bernie
Volz (EUD)
Sent: Tuesday, February 18, 2003 2:30 AM
To: 'Ralph Droms'; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.txt

VJ> Basically, sending these options in messages originating from the
VJ> client is for asking the server to provide these information.
VJ> Its the alternative way of sending ORO with the option number for these
options.
VJ> We may want to make a decision here that these options can occur
VJ> ONLY in messages originating from server and the client can
VJ> indicate the server that it want any of these options by sending ONLY
VJ> ORO option, because, client sending these options is of
VJ> no interest in the server side, since, its not going to make
VJ> any major decision based on the content of this option.
VJ> But, it SHOULD be made consistent with ALL service addresses/parameters
options.

Based on earlier text, these options are for the server to convey
information

VJ> I will add.

VJ> OK. I will add.

- Bernie
-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 12, 2003 3:25 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] WG last call on

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-nisconfig-01.t
xt
- Ralph Droms