Let's get back to this, shall we?
Responses inline...
On Nov 28, 2005, at 7:04 AM, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
> There are a few minor issues that probably should be
addressed:
>
> 1. Reference to DHCP Relay Suboption?
>
> Any VSS information contained in a DHCP Relay
Suboption SHOULD
> override the information contained in this VSS
Information option
>
> There should be a reference to the VSS DHCP Relay
Suboption? Is there
> such a RFC/I-D (I didn't see it though I didn't look
that hard). If
> there is no such RFC/I-D, best to remove this text and
let a later
> draft
> specify this? Note that this suboption is mentioned in
multiple places
> (including the IANA Considerations section).
Kim did a draft for the VPN Relay Suboption (possibly
renamed the
"VSS Relay Suboption"). I can't seem to find
any current status on
it, however. I need to find that draft and then reference
it here, I
think.
>
> Minor: No period at end of sentence.
>
> 2. I wonder whether the second paragraph of the
abstract shouldn't be
> moved to the IANA considerations section? Seems to me
that this
> draft is
> requesting that IANA officially assigned option 221 to
this option.
>
> The option number currently in use is 221. This
memo documents the
> current usage of the option in agreement with
RFC-3942[7] , which
> declares that any pre-existing usages of option
numbers in the
> range
> 128 - 223 should be documented and the working group
will try to
> officially assign those numbers to those options.
>
> Perhaps the draft should specify TBD for the option
number in the
> earlier sections and then add something like the
following in the IANA
> Considerations section:
>
> IANA is requested to assign option number 221 for
this option, in
> accordance with RFC-3942[7]. Option 221 has been
used for this
> option
> and there were no conflicting users of option 221
identified during
> the 6-month notification period specified in
RFC-3942.
I don't really like the idea of putting "TBD"
in place of "221" when
we're definitely documenting the use of option number
"221" (we per
RFC-3942) here. I removed the sentence, "The option
number currently
in use is 221.", and put your IANA Considerations text
in that section.
>
> 3. I also believe the IANA section needs something
like:
>
> IANA is requested to start a VSS option type number
registry
> with the
> initial assignments as specified in section 2 of
this document.
> Future
> type values may only be defined by IETF Consensus,
as described in
> [6].
I figured we don't really need to ask IANA to start a VSS
option type
number registry at this point. I can't see any other
possible types
currently. My thoughts were that if someone in the future
sees a
need for more type numbers, then they can document that in
their own
draft and ask for an IANA registry at that time. Is this
just not
the way to go about things?
/raj
>
> - Bernie
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dhcwg-bounces ietf.org
[mailto:dhcwg-bouncesietf.org]
>> On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
>> Sent: Monday, November 28, 2005 5:00 AM
>> To: dhcwgietf.org
>> Subject: [dhcwg] Consensus for WG last call
>> fordraft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-05.txt
>>
>> The chairs believe draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-05.txt
is ready for WG
>> last call.
>>
>> If there are no objections posted to the WG mailing
list, the chairs
>> will start a WG last call for this draft on
2005-12-08.
>>
>> Stig
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwgietf.org
>> https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwgietf.org
https://
www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
|