Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts (IndividualSubmissions) / Agenda Time Request

[JiangSheng 66104 <shengjiang at huawei.com>]

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