Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-dhc-pxe-options-02.txt

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 14 Jan 2006 00:40:19 -0600

I was selected as General Area Review Team reviewer for this specification
(for background on Gen-ART, please see
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/art/gen-art-FAQ.html).

Summary: Huh?

If I understand the draft and underlying working group mailing list traffic 
correctly, this is being published as an Informational RFC to say that PXE 
(and, for good measure, Etherboot?) are using DHCP options that aren't 
allocated by IANA. Some of the mailing list postings showed previous 
versions of the draft with IANA considerations, but the current version of 
the draft says there are no IANA considerations.

So, the plan is to publish an Informational document that describes this 
practice, but does not tell IANA not to allocate the hijacked option codes 
for some other use? Oh-kay... although 
http://www.iana.org/assignments/bootp-dhcp-parameters shows the option codes 
as already tentatively allocated (one presumes this was based on version 01 
of this draft).

If this is the plan, the document is close to OK for publication, although I 
expect the RFC Editor would expand acronyms, etc. I thought

   As options 128-135 are not officially assigned for PXE use (previous
   to November 2004 they were considered site-specific options, [6]),
   use of these options may conflict with other uses of these options.

was oddly phrased - perhaps the last line should have been something like

   use of these option values for PXE may conflict with other uses of the 
same options on the same networks.

Thanks,

Spencer Dawkins 

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

---

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 17:21:22 -0600

Hi, Ralph,

This background helps with my concerns (I just wanted IANA to get clued in 
from SOME specification!).

Thanks,

Spencer

> Spencer - It turns out this draft has a *very* long history.  It is 
> intended
> to document the use of some optinos that date back to a time when IANA
> handed out options codes for DHCP options *before* the defining RFC was
> published.  The current process for assigning option codes is defined in 
> RFC
> 2939.
>
> The intention, then, for this draft (to be an Informational RFC) is to
> document the use of several DHCP options that have been in common use
> without a defining RFC for many years.
>
> We could address one of your issues by explicitly telling IANA not to
> reassign these codes elsewhere, but I think that issue might have been
> addressed in RFC 3679,
>
> And, the option codes that are listed by IANA as "tentatively assigned" 
> are
> in that state as part of the process for extending the DHCPoption code 
> space
> in RFC 3924.
>
> I hope that information answers your high-level questions.
>
> I agree with your editorial commentthat the sentence you cite could be 
> more
> clearly worded and I'll be happy to revise it.
>
> - Ralph
>
>
> On 1/14/06 1:40 AM, "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:
>

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 18:17:33 -0500

Spencer - It turns out this draft has a *very* long history.  It is intended
to document the use of some optinos that date back to a time when IANA
handed out options codes for DHCP options *before* the defining RFC was
published.  The current process for assigning option codes is defined in RFC
2939.

And, the option codes that are listed by IANA as "tentatively assigned" are
in that state as part of the process for extending the DHCPoption code space
in RFC 3924.

I agree with your editorial commentthat the sentence you cite could be more
clearly worded and I'll be happy to revise it.

- Ralph