Re: draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt

Thomas - you've summarized the argument in favor of an RFC 2132-style
option.  I posted a precis of all the issues in the discussion here:
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg04457.html

- Ralph

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005, Thomas Narten wrote:

> > Margaret - these drafts are sort of falling into a crack.  I don't know of
> > another WG that can evaluate the requirements.  The information and option
> > format is trivial and the WG can review them.  The WG responded to 3GPP2 to
> > prefer VIVSO, and 3GPP2 came back to express preference for RFC 2132-style
> > options.  The dhc WG chairs have not been able to get any additional
> > justification from 3GPP2, and we have been getting pressure to move forward
> > quickly.  Seems at this point a WG last call is a good way to "call the
> > question" and get the discussion started so the various issues can
> > be aired.
>
> In terms of 3GPP2's preference for 2132-style options, doesn't it come
> down to ease of deployability?  RFC 3925 is not yet widely
> implemented/deployed, if at all. Do deploying/using the VIVSO option
> is more complicated, and may require server upgrades.
>
> 2132-style options can clearly deployed today, using  existing
> (already deployed) servers.
>
> Is this the essence of the debate?
>
> Thomas
>