RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specific?
"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Fri, 09 April 2004 01:05 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18199 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:05:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRd-0001I2-Aq for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:33 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i3914XqP004954 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:33 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBkRd-0001Hp-7P for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:33 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA18072 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 21:04:30 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkRa-0007gO-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 21:04:30 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBkCf-0005CZ-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:49:08 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBjpX-0002XL-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:11 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBjpU-0002fF-8O; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 20:25:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBit8-0005Mm-Ho for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:24:50 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA07897 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 19:24:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBit6-0004Km-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 19:24:48 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBhmB-0003eL-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 18:13:37 -0400
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBflM-0002of-00; Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:04:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-2.cisco.com (64.102.124.13) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 08 Apr 2004 13:00:41 -0700
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i38K3sCC004603; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:03:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k ([161.44.65.208]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.6-GR) with ESMTP id AHL91380; Thu, 8 Apr 2004 16:03:53 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specific?
Date: Thu, 08 Apr 2004 16:03:53 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <002601c41da4$9dd1a220$d0412ca1@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.4024
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200
Importance: Normal
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20040406202408.02cc4ed8@flask.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
YES! As this specification deals with DHCPv4 (is extends DHCPv4), it should be IPv4 specific. It is a separate issue as to whether corresponding functionality will be needed for DHCPv6 and something that the WG should take up. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph Droms Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:25 PM To: dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specific? Bert Wijnen: Discuss: - It seems to be implicitly IPv4 specific without explaining/justifying why and uses "IP address" to mean IPv4 addresses only. Do we not want them to either be IPv4/v6 agnostic or to be specific in stating that they are IPv4 only if such is the case and justified? _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be … Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly… Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly… Kim Kinnear