Re: [dhcwg] Re: I-D: draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-00.txt

Bernie Volz wrote:
> Before I revise the draft, please let me know if you think it is worth
> doing. The choices are:
> 1. Allow only the simple case for now (ie, Client FQDN option in an IA_NA
> or IA_TA options field applies to all addresses in the IA). We can always
> add the complex case (using a bit) in the future.
> 2. Allow both the simple and more complex case (latter is as currently
> documented); we'd use a bit in the flags field to indicate whether the
> client supports the complex method and wants to use (server can support it
> or not). Default (bit not set) is simple-only.
> 3. Come up with a completely different approach the problem (ideas?).
> 4. Abandon this work (if there's no interest in it).

I think 1 is sufficient for now, but I would also accept 2.  I think 4 is not 
a good choice.  dns integration is a valuable differentiator between dhcp and 
slac.

Joe.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Re: [dhcwg] Re: I-D: draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-fqdn-00.txt - NEED INPUT BEFORE REVISING DRAFT!