From: Michael Riepe <michael@stud.uni-hannover.de> Subject: Re: appropriate code for a GRUB-specific option Date: Sun, 28 May 2000 16:10:54 +0200 > future. Codes 128 ... 254 may have been assigned by the local network > administrator and are not an option for GRUB. That depends on how you interpret the sentence in RFC 2132: Option codes 128 to 254 (decimal) are reserved for site-specific options. My interpretation for this is different from yours, since RFC 1497 says: Reserved Fields (Tag: 128-254, Data: N bytes of undefined content) Specifies additional site-specific information, to be interpreted on an implementation-specific basis. This should follow all data with the preceding generic tags 0- 127). So I think it's fair to assume that "site-specific" is used as an alternative word to "implementation-specific". In fact, Etherboot defines several vendors extensions in the documentation: http://etherboot.sourceforge.net/doc/html/vendortags.html Anyway, how can a local administrator use the site-specific information if no (client) implementation supports it? ;) > anyway, i.e. use a built-in default configuration. Of course, you could > also follow the procedure outlined in RFC 2132, section 10, and register > a new code for GRUB... That's right, but I don't think they will accept an implementation-specific feature. Therefore, if the Etherboot developers have no opinion, I'll pick an arbitrary code which is not used by Etherboot at least for now. Thanks, Okuji =========================================================================== This Mail was sent to netboot mailing list by: OKUJI Yoshinori <okuji@kuicr.kyoto-u.ac.jp> To get help about this list, send a mail with 'help' as the only string in it's body to majordomo@baghira.han.de. If you have problems with this list, send a mail to netboot-owner@baghira.han.de.
For requests or suggestions regarding this mailing list archive please write to netboot@gkminix.han.de.