Subject: [dhcwg] RE: draft-volz-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt

From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 10:18:09 -0600

John:

Thanks for your support!

>The (now blank) recommendation should say that both methods should be pursued.

Agreed. However, eventually it will need to specify which of the two (or perhaps
some other) method should be adopted.

>Please provide (maybe discuss in SF?) some background for this belief:
>   However, there are believed to be few sites that make heavy use of
>   site-specific options and they would have many years to redeploy.

Not sure I can except to say that I've experienced very few instances where
people have used these ... if you have information that contradicts this,
please do provide it!!!

Also note that by this statement I was referring to true and proper use
of site-specific options and not those options that vendors may have defined
for their own needs within the current site-specific options range - as those
options violate the true meaning of site-specific and should be moved to
either using vendor specific options OR consider documenting the use and
getting an officially (IANA) assigned option number.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: John Schnizlein [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 10:45 AM
To: Bernie Volz (EUD)
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: draft-volz-dhc-extended-optioncodes-00.txt

At 10:20 AM 2/26/2003, Bernie Volz (EUD) wrote:

>I'd like to bring this draft to the attention of the DHC WG. It is work that 
>I'd will request to be considered a WG item. 
>
>Comments on the draft or it becoming a WG item (pro or con) are welcome. 

This is good idea, and should be adopted by the WG.
The (now blank) recommendation should say that both methods should be pursued.
Please provide (maybe discuss in SF?) some background for this belief:
   However, there are believed to be few sites that make heavy use of
   site-specific options and they would have many years to redeploy.

John