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 PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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 Gen-art@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
