[Geopriv] Options for Resolution of DISCUSS comments on RFC 3825bis

From: Bernard Aboba ^lt;bernard_aboba@hotmail.com>
Date: Sat Dec 04 2010 - 16:12:24 EST

As noted in the tracker, several IESG members have raised the question of whether it makes sense to revise the original RFC 3825 DHCP option or just to create a new DHCP option with a new code point.

Here are the potential choices for moving forward:

a. Continue to use a single option code for both versions 0 and 1. In this approach the document would be left more or less as it is, but additional material would be added to the discussion of backward compatibility in Section 2.2.1 to explain why the WG took this approach.

b. Allocate a new option code for the version 1 format, leave material on the original option in the document. In this approach, the document would continue to revise RFC 3825, but would also define new DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 options. While this approach would be consistent with the GEOPRIV WG charter (which describes the goal of the work item as "to obsolete 3825"), it is not clear whether there would be enough clarifications/revisions to RFC 3825 material to justify keeping that material in it.

c. Allocate new DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 option codes for the new format, but remove material relating to the original RFC 3825 format. This approach would define new option codes, but would remove discussion of option code 123. Such a document would probably be quite a bit shorter, since material relating to backward compatibility could be removed.

One question relating to this approach would be whether the new document would obsolete RFC 3825 or not. Since the GEOPRIV WG charter lists the work item as "Submit an draft for
DHCP geodetic location to the IESG for publication as PS to obsolete
3825" if the new document did not obsolete RFC 3825 then a charter change would seem to be required.


Geopriv mailing list
Received on Sat, 4 Dec 2010 13:12:24 -0800

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Sat Dec 04 2010 - 16:12:47 EST