BIND 10 #2657: BIND10 Guide update: DHCPv6 options

[BIND 10 Development]

#2657: BIND10 Guide update: DHCPv6 options
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
            Reporter:  tomek         |                        Owner:
                Type:  task          |  marcin
            Priority:  medium        |                       Status:
           Component:                |  reviewing
  documentation                      |                    Milestone:
            Keywords:                |  Sprint-DHCP-20130214
           Sensitive:  0             |                   Resolution:
         Sub-Project:  DHCP          |                 CVSS Scoring:
Estimated Difficulty:  0             |              Defect Severity:  N/A
         Total Hours:  0             |  Feature Depending on Ticket:
                                     |          Add Hours to Ticket:  0
                                     |                    Internal?:  0
-------------------------------------+-------------------------------------
Changes (by stephen):

 * owner:  stephen => marcin


Comment:

 Reviewed commit 1e2111996aa44a583fcdf0997a6aa170542f3ea2.

 I've made a number of modifications, including the removal of the ia-pd
 and iaprefix options from table 18.1 mentioned by Tomek.

 In the longer term, I think we should be able to merge most of sections 17
 and 18 - there is much in common that differs only by Dhcp4/Dhcp6 in the
 examples.  However, I think it is OK for now.

 > No. The container option's type is set to uint16. This means that this
 option conveys uint16 value. In addition, this option encapsulates option
 space called isc so as all options that belong to the isc option space
 will be included in the container option. Both things imply that the
 layout of the option and the corresponding values will be as follows:
 I think it would be better to change the example to use a type of "empty",
 and add a short addendum to the section showing how this is modified
 should the option also be required to carry a value.  That way, the first
 part focuses purely on the suboptions: the second extends the concept to
 cover the idea of the enclosing option carrying a value as well as
 carrying sub-options.

 Generally though, I think this is good.  We won't get the documentation
 perfect in this release, but we will have a firm basis on which to develop
 these sections further.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://bind10.isc.org/ticket/2657#comment:8>
BIND 10 Development <http://bind10.isc.org>
BIND 10 Development