Re: NT 3.51 dhcp client and server ip address

[Don Coolidge <[e-mail]>]

>At 6:54 PM 12/3/96, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>In general, it just seems like a bad idea to
>>have multiple identifiers referring to the same object.
>
>Yeah - looks like we blew it by overloading the "identifier" field to also
>act as the "return address" field.
>
>We can either fix it or leave it:
>
>  * Fixing will delay the advancement to Draft Standard, as it would
>    represent a fairly basic change to the behavior of clients and
>    servers.
>
>  * Leaving it leaves the problem with multiple identifiers for a single
>    server - as pointed out by Ted - unfixed.
>
>Discussion?
>
>- Ralph

Leaving it as is simply postpones fixing Ted's problem, yes?  And while
fixing it would require reworking of some existing implementations, that
would have to be done anyway when the problem is finally dealt with, as it
must be eventually. Fixing it now frontloads that effort and leads more
quickly to common interpretation of the spec and greater interoperability.

I've worked at companies where not slipping a schedule often had greater
priority than fixing known product problems. I have yet to see following
that philosophy lead to anything other than trouble.

In my opinion, we should deal with this known problem now and take the hit
on Draft Standard status.

-- Don Coolidge