Ted Lemon wrote:
It's never been up to the DHC working group to decide whether new DHCP options are architecturally good. People have often used the DHC working group as a way to skate by due diligence on architectural considerations; this was considered to be a problem even before I was chair, and we burned a lot of time evaluating bad ideas before we decided not to be the place where new work on DHCP options is done by default. If a DHCP option were to be entertained, this WG, the dprive WG or the DoH WG would be where it would have to happen, not because the DHC working group is freezing new features, but because it's not in their charter.
you, as an author of two implementations as a former DHC WG chair, have said that new features should not be added to DHCP because authentication. while i disagree, i recognize that your voice has more credibility in the DHCP space than mine does, and i'm ready to give up rather than actually fight and lose the battle.
That said, you responded to a message where I talked about what I think we ought to do to move forward by saying that moving forward is impossible other than by just adding a hack somewhere. I don't think that's true, and in fact I'm feeling like I need to write up a threat analysis because even though it's not something that I want to work on, it sounds like most people assume it's impossible and I'm just suggesting it as a roadblock, and the people who get that it's necessary don't seem to be any more enthusiastic about doing it than I am. I'd appreciate it if, when I've written that analysis, you could contribute to it, but I'll understand if you don't have time or don't think it's worthwhile.
my own experience as a widely unread author is that i have to keep things short or people will refile/delete them, no matter how meritorious or relevant (or even pithy and clever) the writing was.
-- P Vixie _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
