Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing PIDF as well as HELD features

From: James M. Polk ^lt;jmpolk@cisco.com>
Date: Mon Jul 14 2008 - 15:00:02 EDT

At 12:58 PM 7/14/2008, Rosen, Brian wrote:
>We could make an argument that DHCP is a very simple LCP and just
>because there is some feature in HELD, we SHOULD NOT implement that
>feature in DHCP.

I'm with you here

>If we decided this was a good idea, we might not, for example, decide to
>accept several of the more recent proposals for, to give an example,
>retrieving an LbyR from DHCP.

I'm not with you here

give that
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-02.txt
has a publication request sitting on the WG chair's desktop.

I believe learning a LbyR is a good thing to have via DHCP, so either
you don't like this idea, or this was a less than great example of your point.

If you were trying to basically say

         All LCPs don't need to have ever itty-bitty feature added
         to them when another LCP proposes to add a feature.

Then I get your point, and agree with it.

I think the case needs to be made by the proposers of the LCP adding
the new feature why this new feature is so important that it should
be in every LCP.

In other words, I don't want to have to chase every itty-bitty new
feature, but for more substantive one - there ought to be a
discussion (mandated perhaps) as to whether each LCP should have that
feature added to all the others. This is not suggesting necessarily
that one author or one doc needs to describe how to put this new,
more substantive feature into each remaining LCP (although, that's an
interesting idea - that puts the burden on the original author to
port any feature into each LCP from the start).

>I'm not specifically arguing for or against any proposal yet; I am
>trying to focus on the big picture; should all LCPs be roughly equally
>capable, or should some be much more restrictive, with the admonition to
>use HELD when the situation is complex?
>
>Brian
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> > Sent: Monday, July 14, 2008 1:38 PM
> > To: Rosen, Brian; geopriv@ietf.org
> > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] What to do about DHCP and the ever changing
>PIDF as
> > well as HELD features
> >
> > At 09:14 AM 7/14/2008, Rosen, Brian wrote:
> > >We could do similar things with the "features" we're adding to HELD,
>or
> > >we could say "no DHCP is for a simple case of LCP and if you need
>those
> > >features, use HELD".
> >
> > I'm not parsing this line from your message. Can you say it another
> > way, please?
> >

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
Received on Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:00:02 -0500

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Jul 14 2008 - 15:14:29 EDT