[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts (IndividualSubmissions) / Agenda Time Request
Hi, Bernie,
If it is a single-vendor mechanism, why do it need to be a standard RFC? Vendor A
can always achieve it in its devices with whatever format it wants. Vendor B can
also achieve it in its own devices in whatever format it wants without consider the
consistency with Vendor A or a standard, even there is a standard available. And the
non-standard way has probably less security issues.
If you do agree cross-vendor mechanism is a useful scenario, but don't want to do it
in these two draft, we may do it together with new drafts to the DHC WG/IETF.
Cheers,
Sheng
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Bernie Volz (volz) [mailto:volz at cisco.com]
>>Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 11:27 AM
>>To: JiangSheng 66104; dhcwg at ietf.org
>>Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>>Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts
>>(IndividualSubmissions) / Agenda Time Request
>>
>>Hi:
>>
>>I actually disagree that this is a cross-vendor mechanism. If
>>you're planning to do that, why not go to the DHC WG/IETF and
>>standardize it?
>>
>>I do admit that it may be possible for an organization, such
>>as CableLabs or the DSLForum, to define messages and the
>>format of the data to allow application specific exchanges
>>(such as Cablelabs DOCSIS 3.0 made use of the vendor
>>options). But, I would discourage that as it is likely that
>>other technologies will likely find these new messages to be
>>useful as well and hence they should be defined through the IETF.
>>
>>I suspect that this is exactly what people feared would
>>happen and we do need to avoid that.
>>
>>- Bernie
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org]
>>On Behalf Of JiangSheng 66104
>>Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2008 11:12 PM
>>To: Bernie Volz (volz); dhcwg at ietf.org
>>Cc: Ralph Droms (rdroms)
>>Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts
>>(IndividualSubmissions) / Agenda Time Request
>>
>>Hi, Bernie,
>>
>>I have just quitely reviewed these two drafts. They looks
>>quite interesting for me. Your "to allow communication
>>between DHCP entities for data that would not normally be
>>standardized or there is little interest for" is a useful
>>scenario for us too.
>>
>>However, for me, these two drafts does not give enough
>>technical solution as it is now. If I understand you
>>correctly, the most important scenario is to allow
>>communication between DIFFERENT vendors' devices (the
>>communication between the devices from the same vendor can be
>>achieveed by vender's own implementation, no need to define a
>>standard message type). Your current draft is lack of the
>>support for intercommunication. As suggestion, for the
>>"vendor-data " field, more detailed definitions or
>>recommandations on how to describe/organize these vendor data
>>should be given so that a DHCP entity from vendor A MAY be
>>able to understand a vendor message sent by another DHCP
>>entity from vendor B.
>>
>>Best regards,
>>
>>Sheng JIANG, Ph.D.
>>
>>IP Research Department, Networking Research Department,
>>Network Product Line, Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.
>>
>>PS: I also cc this message to Ralph because a, he will
>>represent Bernie's draft; b, my emails to DHC rarely get
>>through and show up on the maillist recently due to some
>>problems between my email server and IETF email server.
>>
>>
>>>>-----Original Message-----
>>>>From: dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org
>>[mailto:dhcwg-bounces at ietf.org] On Behalf
>>>>Of Bernie Volz (volz)
>>>>Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2008 6:26 AM
>>>>To: dhcwg at ietf.org
>>>>Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts
>>>>(IndividualSubmissions) / Agenda Time Request
>>>>
>>>>Folks:
>>>>
>>>>I recently submitted an updated
>>>>draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-vendor-message-01.txt and also a new
>>>>draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00.txt.
>>>>
>>>>The DHCPv6 draft was originally presented at the Prague IETF
>>>>(IETF-68) and wasn't warmly received. One of the issues was the
>>>>reserved option space, which has been removed. The more significant
>>>>concern, if I recall correctly, was that vendors would use these
>>>>messages in place of going the standards route, and while I
>>can't say
>>>>that isn't a valid concern, I suspect that in most cases
>>that won't be
>>>>an issue. My purpose for this message is to allow communication
>>>>between DHCP entities for data that would not normally be
>>standardized
>>>>or there is little interest for. For example, it could be
>>used by DHCP
>>>>servers to exchange configuration data or implement
>>failover (we know
>>>>the long and tortured road that DHCPv4 failover has
>>followed and while
>>>>there was a LOT of value to that work, we still don't have
>>a standards
>>>>track document and there's little interest to doing the
>>work necessary
>>>>to get it done).
>>>>
>>>>The DHCPv4 draft is new and was a natural extension. Of
>>course, DHCPv4
>>>>is a bit different from DHCPv6, so there are some
>>differences (a new
>>>>option is needed to convey the enterprise-id number).
>>>>
>>>>I will not be at the Dublin IETF and may try to participate
>>virtually
>>>>(it will be 4AM for me, but I likely shouldn't complain as
>>most will
>>>>still be jet lagged).
>>>>
>>>>I've asked Ralph (with his working co-chair hat off) to present
>>>>something briefly. Hopefully he and John can work it into
>>the schedule
>>>>if time permits (it is a very late agenda addition).
>>>>
>>>>If anyone on the list supports the concept (as several folks did
>>>>privately communicate interest to me), please speak up -
>>either at the
>>>>meeting or on the list.
>>>>
>>>>- Bernie
>>>>_______________________________________________
>>>>dhcwg mailing list
>>>>dhcwg at ietf.org
>>>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>dhcwg at ietf.org
>>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg