From: Michael Riepe <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: appropriate code for a GRUB-specific option
Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 16:10:54 +0200
> future. Codes 128 ... 254 may have been assigned by the local network
> administrator and are not an option for GRUB.
That depends on how you interpret the sentence in RFC 2132:
Option codes 128 to 254 (decimal) are reserved for site-specific
options.
My interpretation for this is different from yours, since RFC 1497
says:
Reserved Fields (Tag: 128-254, Data: N bytes of undefined
content)
Specifies additional site-specific information, to be
interpreted on an implementation-specific basis. This
should follow all data with the preceding generic tags 0-
127).
So I think it's fair to assume that "site-specific" is used as an
alternative word to "implementation-specific". In fact, Etherboot
defines several vendors extensions in the documentation:
http://etherboot.sourceforge.net/doc/html/vendortags.html
Anyway, how can a local administrator use the site-specific
information if no (client) implementation supports it? ;)
> anyway, i.e. use a built-in default configuration. Of course, you could
> also follow the procedure outlined in RFC 2132, section 10, and register
> a new code for GRUB...
That's right, but I don't think they will accept an
implementation-specific feature.
Therefore, if the Etherboot developers have no opinion, I'll pick an
arbitrary code which is not used by Etherboot at least for now.
Thanks,
Okuji
