Skip to main content

Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options Used by PXELINUX
RFC 5071

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes ()

                            
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-05)
This needs a reference to 2939. It is very hard to figure out if this follows the correct IANA allocation procedure without this.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-05)
I believe that the title and Abstract should expand PXELINUX so that there is an indication to people doing a search in the RFC repository what the defied options are about. I also think that the second phrase in the Abstract 'These codes were historically designated 'Site Local', but are presently being made available for allocation as standard DHCP Options.' should be striken out as after the publication of RFC 3942 it does not matter any longer where in the option space the numbers come from.
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-06)
Section 4.2 and 5.2: Do I understand correctly that there are no string length limitations other than the 255 that is implied by the 1 byte size field?
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2007-09-06)
I assume that implementations claiming conformance to this spec must implement all four
options.  Perhaps we could add a statement somewhere to that effect?