RE: [Mipshop] IETF MIPSHOP MIH L3 transport - Internet draft (DHCPcomments)

[<Gabor.Bajko at nokia.com>]

> *enc* field is not familiar with DHC folks
 
hm. Interesting. there are RFCs already using it, eg RFC3361.
 
> [MoS-option-code] [len] [sub-option-code] [len1] [len1 bytes]
[sub-option-code] [len2] [len2 bytes] ...
 
> o MoS Suboption Code 1 = domain name
> o MoS Suboption Code 2 = IPv4 address
 
yes, this also works.
 
Or, I could define two separate options, one carrying domain names, the
other IP addresses ....
 
- gabor 
 

________________________________

From: ext Daniel Park [mailto:soohongp at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, October 05, 2007 8:25 PM
To: Zuniga, Juan Carlos
Cc: STDS-802-21 at listserv.ieee.org; mipshop at ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Mipshop] IETF MIPSHOP MIH L3 transport - Internet draft
(DHCPcomments)


This is a couple of DHCP-comments (draft-bajko-mos-dhcp-options-00) as part
of MoS discovery procedure.
 
[1] As I pointed out at 802.21 meeting, AFAIC, *enc* field is not familiar
with DHC folks. This is my real experience from DHC discussion long time ago
regarding *draft-daniel-dhc-mihis-opt*. The option format described here is
fairly hard to adopt. Sub-options are well understood by server
implementors, so 'proper support' would not need any code changes.  In
bried, here is a proposed new format: 
 
[MoS-option-code] [len] [sub-option-code] [len1] [len1 bytes]
[sub-option-code] [len2] [len2 bytes] ...
 
o MoS Suboption Code 1 = domain name
o MoS Suboption Code 2 = IPv4 address
 
Equal to DHCPv6 option format (different length and format of options)

This is immediately adoptable without code changes or requiring users to
read RFCs, by what I assume would be all DHCP server
software (it at least would be trivial for ours). For multiple encodings,
*sub-option* approach would be sufficient. 

[2] In *draft-daniel-dhc-mihis-opt*, we did propose only IS use case not ES
and CS cases. It is because I didn't see any applicable cases regarding ES
and CS in conjunction with DHCP. I know this solution document is not about
IS but about all 802.21 services (ES/CS/IS), but I am curious you are
assuming DHCP server should have all ES and CS entities information ?
 
 
I've quickly made some of DHCP comments. Further comments on this solution
document will be forthcoming once carefully reading this document again.
 
Anyhow, thanks for all of your effort on this document.
 
Daniel Park [at] SAMSUNG Electronics.

 
On 9/26/07, Zuniga, Juan Carlos <JuanCarlos.Zuniga at interdigital.com> wrote: 

	Hello guys,
	
	As Gabor mentioned in his presentation last week in the 802.21
meeting,
	the MIPSHOP MIH Transport Design Team has just produced a first
draft 
	for the solution of the L3 transport of the 802.21 MIH protocol.
	
	Please take a look at the document and provide your comments on both
	IEEE 802.21 and IETF MIPSHOP lists so that we can move forward in
having
	a final solution.
	
	A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
	
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-melia-mipshop-mstp-solution-00 
	.txt
	
	Best regards,
	
	Jc
	
	
	_______________________________________________
	Mipshop mailing list
	Mipshop at ietf.org
	https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

_______________________________________________
Mipshop mailing list
Mipshop at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mipshop