Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol Options Used by PXELINUX
RFC 5071

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-09-05 for -)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-09-05 for -)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-09-06 for -)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-09-06)
No email
send info
I assume that implementations claiming conformance to this spec must implement all four
options.  Perhaps we could add a statement somewhere to that effect?