[dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com> Tue, 28 August 2001 03:51 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10238; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:51:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA19236; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:42:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA19210 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:42:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail-out1.apple.com (mail-out1.apple.com [17.254.0.52]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA10058 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 23:40:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from apple.con (A17-128-100-225.apple.com [17.128.100.225]) by mail-out1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id UAA18240 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:40:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from scv1.apple.com (scv1.apple.com) by apple.con (Content Technologies SMTPRS 4.2.1) with ESMTP id <T55a227790e118064e13a0@apple.con>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:38:36 +0100
Received: from [206.111.147.149] (vpn-gh-1077.apple.com [17.254.140.52]) by scv1.apple.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with SMTP id UAA19954; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:40:28 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <200108280340.UAA19954@scv1.apple.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 20:40:28 -0700
x-sender: cheshire@mail.apple.com
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, January 22, 1998
From: Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
To: "Ted Lemon" <mellon@nominum.com>
cc: "DHCP discussion list" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

>If I change MUST NOT to SHOULD NOT, will this answer your objection?

In my original mail, I proposed text using the word "MAY". I still think 
that's the right wording.

I notice an amusing symmetry here:

I write a DHCP client, and would like it to request both options, but I 
expect server administrators will usually configure their servers to 
return only one or the other, as appropriate for the particular site.

Ted writes a DHCP server, and would like it to be configured with data 
for both options, but expects client administrators to configure their 
clients to only request one or the other, as appropriate for the 
particular site.

No editorial comment here. I'm just wondering if we're both looking at 
the same problem from opposite sides, and each wanting the other side to 
be the one making the decision. (However, if we do pursue this line of 
reasoning, I'd argue that site-specific configuration belongs in the 
server, not the client.)

Stuart Cheshire <cheshire@apple.com>
 * Wizard Without Portfolio, Apple Computer
 * Chairman, IETF ZEROCONF
 * www.stuartcheshire.org



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