[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dhcwg] We really mean it this time *FINAL* agenda for dhc WG meeting

On 17/03/2009, at 3:47 AM, David W. Hankins wrote:


On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 03:37:46PM +0200, Alper Yegin wrote:
Are the chairs really asking the WG to adopt this I-D? The plan was to see the designated team's analysis on this I-D first, before anything moves 
forward.


If you look at the draft, it has changed significantly;

o It is now Informational.

o It is tied to Bernie's "Vendor Messages", and documents in pretty
 fine detail their use of those messages to implement "DHCPEAP".
 It requires no IANA assignment, so they do not need these drafts
 to progress to implement it.

I don't know if this is considered bad form at the IETF, but I think
we need to seriously (re)consider this compromise; a show of good
faith on DSL Forum's behalf to document their (ab)uses.

(I would like to note briefly that I see no evidence the draft has
made any attempt to address the technical concerns I raised last
year, and so I still must say this draft "documents a bad idea in
fine detail.")
David your fundamental disagreement was on if DHCP should configure the network element as well as the host. We feel it does and this draft revolves around improving that, but I certainly have given allot of thought to your comment but little I could say in the draft that would address that. The simple fact is that although it was not part of DHCP at the outset; DHCP does configure relays in many enterprise and service 
provider networks today.
But I as for the rest of the details, as I hope you noted, we have given serious weight to the practical suggestions you made 
in you email back in August.

- Ric