IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-netboot-05

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Tue, 06 October 2009 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4AF693A68BA for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:53:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.31
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.31 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.289, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id aEjUJuRf1al9 for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:53:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og108.obsmtp.com (exprod7og108.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.169]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2A4133A686B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:53:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from source ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob108.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKSsuurTt7JOcjXOhfQGSwHLdkXyEd0Qej@postini.com; Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:55:17 PDT
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (webmail.nominum.com [64.89.228.50]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-MD5 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "webmail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 104091B82F8; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:55:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from vpna-148.vpn.nominum.com (64.89.227.148) by exchange-01.win.nominum.com (64.89.228.50) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.393.1; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 13:55:08 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1076)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"; delsp="yes"
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <20091006205250.GC30094@shell-too.nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 13:55:06 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <76124947-CA70-412C-80D9-8B9495A60A56@nominum.com>
References: <16A6AF20B09CDF48A96DABA42BF6793744EB8D4AD9@GVW1092EXB.americas.hpqcorp.net> <200910062041.n96Kf4WS021306@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <20091006205250.GC30094@shell-too.nominum.com>
To: Stephen Jacob <Stephen.Jacob@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1076)
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-netboot-05
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 20:53:39 -0000

On Oct 6, 2009, at 1:52 PM, Stephen Jacob wrote:
> I tend to agree that unless there is a compelling reason to forbid  
> zero,
> zero should simply be the highest precedence.

The precedence value is used in two types of option.   In one of  
these, it's a wild card.   In the other, a wild card is not  
appropriate, hence it's forbidden.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email