idnits 2.17.1 draft-ietf-dhc-userclass-00.txt: ** The Abstract section seems to be numbered Checking boilerplate required by RFC 5378 and the IETF Trust (see https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info): ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Cannot find the required boilerplate sections (Copyright, IPR, etc.) in this document. Expected boilerplate is as follows today (2024-04-23) according to https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info : IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.a: This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 2: Copyright (c) 2024 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the document authors. All rights reserved. IETF Trust Legal Provisions of 28-dec-2009, Section 6.b(i), paragraph 3: This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document. Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights and restrictions with respect to this document. Code Components extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License. Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/1id-guidelines.txt: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** Missing expiration date. The document expiration date should appear on the first and last page. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about Internet-Drafts being working documents. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about 6 months document validity -- however, there's a paragraph with a matching beginning. Boilerplate error? ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of current Internet-Drafts. ** The document seems to lack a 1id_guidelines paragraph about the list of Shadow Directories. == No 'Intended status' indicated for this document; assuming Proposed Standard Checking nits according to https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist : ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ** The document seems to lack an Introduction section. ** The document seems to lack an IANA Considerations section. (See Section 2.2 of https://www.ietf.org/id-info/checklist for how to handle the case when there are no actions for IANA.) ** The document seems to lack separate sections for Informative/Normative References. All references will be assumed normative when checking for downward references. ** There is 1 instance of too long lines in the document, the longest one being 2 characters in excess of 72. ** The document seems to lack a both a reference to RFC 2119 and the recommended RFC 2119 boilerplate, even if it appears to use RFC 2119 keywords. RFC 2119 keyword, line 106: '... client MUST ignore it (although it ...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 107: '... servers SHOULD respond with the set...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 110: '... MUST return this option (with the g...' RFC 2119 keyword, line 114: '... SHOULD make an attempt to operate w...' Miscellaneous warnings: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -- The document seems to lack a disclaimer for pre-RFC5378 work, but may have content which was first submitted before 10 November 2008. If you have contacted all the original authors and they are all willing to grant the BCP78 rights to the IETF Trust, then this is fine, and you can ignore this comment. If not, you may need to add the pre-RFC5378 disclaimer. (See the Legal Provisions document at https://trustee.ietf.org/license-info for more information.) -- The document date (November 1996) is 10021 days in the past. Is this intentional? Checking references for intended status: Proposed Standard ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- (See RFCs 3967 and 4897 for information about using normative references to lower-maturity documents in RFCs) == Unused Reference: 'DHCP' is defined on line 131, but no explicit reference was found in the text ** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 1541 (ref. 'DHCP') (Obsoleted by RFC 2131) Summary: 13 errors (**), 0 flaws (~~), 2 warnings (==), 2 comments (--). Run idnits with the --verbose option for more detailed information about the items above. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1 Network Working Group Glenn Stump, IBM 2 INTERNET DRAFT Ralph Droms, Bucknell University 3 November 1996 4 Expires May 1996 6 The User Class Option for DHCP 7 9 Status of this Memo 11 This document is an Internet-Draft. Internet-Drafts are working 12 documents of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), its areas, 13 and its working groups. Note that other groups may also distribute 14 working documents as Internet-Drafts. 16 Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months 17 and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any 18 time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference 19 material or to cite them other than as ``work in progress.'' 21 To learn the current status of any Internet-Draft, please check the 22 ``1id-abstracts.txt'' listing contained in the Internet-Drafts Shadow 23 Directories on ftp.is.co.za (Africa), nic.nordu.net (Europe), 24 munnari.oz.au (Pacific Rim), ds.internic.net (US East Coast), or 25 ftp.isi.edu (US West Coast). 27 1. Abstract 29 This option is used by a DHCP client to optionally identify the type 30 or category of user or applications it represents. The information 31 contained in this option is an NVT ASCII text object that represents 32 the user class of which the client is a member. 34 2. Definitions 36 Throughout this document, the words that are used to define the 37 significance of particular requirements are capitalized. These words 38 are: 40 o "MUST" 42 This word or the adjective "REQUIRED" means that the 43 item is an absolute requirement of this specification. 45 o "MUST NOT" 47 This phrase means that the item is an absolute prohibition 48 of this specification. 50 o "SHOULD" 52 This word or the adjective "RECOMMENDED" means that there 53 may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances to ignore 54 this item, but the full implications should be understood and 55 the case carefully weighed before choosing a different course. 57 o "SHOULD NOT" 59 This phrase means that there may exist valid reasons in 60 particular circumstances when the listed behavior is acceptable 61 or even useful, but the full implications should be understood 62 and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior 63 described with this label. 65 o "MAY" 67 This word or the adjective "OPTIONAL" means that this item is 68 truly optional. One vendor may choose to include the item 69 because a particular marketplace requires it or because it 70 enhances the product, for example; another vendor may omit the 71 same item. 73 This document also uses the following terms: 75 o "DHCP client" 77 A DHCP client or "client" is an Internet host using DHCP to obtain 78 configuration parameters such as a network address. 80 o "DHCP server" 82 A DHCP server of "server"is an Internet host that returns 83 configuration parameters to DHCP clients. 85 o "binding" 87 A binding is a collection of configuration parameters, including 88 at least an IP address, associated with or "bound to" a DHCP 89 client. Bindings are managed by DHCP servers. 91 3. User Class Information 93 This option is used by a DHCP client to optionally identify the type 94 or category of user or applications it represents. The information 95 contained in this option is an NVT ASCII text object that represents 96 the user class of which the client is a member. 98 DHCP administrators may define specific user class identifiers to 99 convey information about a client's software configuration or about 100 its user's preferences. For example, an identifier may specify that 101 a particular DHCP client is a member of the class "accounting 102 auditors", which have special service needs such as a particular 103 database server. 105 Servers not equipped to interpret the user class specified by a 106 client MUST ignore it (although it may be reported). Otherwise, 107 servers SHOULD respond with the set of options corresponding to the 108 user class specified by the client. Further, if the server responds 109 with the set of options corresponding to the given user class, it 110 MUST return this option (with the given user class value) to the 111 client. 113 Clients which do not receive information for the user class requested 114 SHOULD make an attempt to operate without it, although they may do so 115 (and may announce they are doing so) in a degraded mode. 117 The code for this option is 77. The minimum length for this option 118 is two. 120 Code Len text1 121 +-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 122 | 77 | N | c1 | c2 | ... 123 +-----+-----+-----+-----+----- 125 Security Considerations 127 Security issues are not discussed in this document. 129 References 131 [DHCP] Droms, R., "Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol", RFC1541, 132 October 1993 134 Acknowledgments 135 Author Information 137 Glenn Stump 138 IBM Networking Software Solutions 139 4205 South Miami Blvd. 140 RTP, NC 27709 141 Phone: (919) 254-5616 142 email: glennstump@vnet.ibm.com 144 Ralph Droms 145 Computer Science Department 146 323 Dana Engineering 147 Bucknell University 148 Lewisburg, PA 17837 149 Phone: (717) 524-1145 150 email: droms@bucknell.edu