RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Thu, 24 January 2002 06:11 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 BAA07677 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:11:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id BAA10877 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:11:13 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA03891; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA03860 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA07409 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 01:00:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([64.170.119.193]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GQF000PWI0RW2@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 22:00:27 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:59:30 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6
In-reply-to: <200201182052.CAA16946@dce.india.hp.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNMEJLDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Vijay Bhaskar A K
> Sent: Friday, January 18, 2002 12:52
>
> - FQDN Option
>
...I want to reserve comments on this option until I've thought about it a
little bit more... comments by Mark, Bernie, and others have provoked my
curiosity to review this more thoroughly


> - Static Route Option
>
> The routes consist of a list of IP address  pairs.  The first address is
> the  destination  address, and the second  address is the router for the
> destination.
>
...I don't disagree with the anything but the unfortunate duplication of
field names: "destination prefix address" is used for both destination
address and router address.  I suggest that the prefix used for router
address should be renamed as "router prefix address."


> - Service Location Protocol Directory Agent Option
>
> The Directory Agent option specifies a one or more Directory Agents (DA),
> along with zero or more scopes supported by the DAs.
>
...here, the illustration is unclear:  it seems to suggest that there are
precisely two DA's and that the Typed Scope List is mandatory (and of
non-zero length).


> - Service Location Protocol Service Scope Option
>
> This option indicates scopes that should be used by a Service Agent (SA)
> as described in RFC 2165, when responding to Service Request messages as
> specified by the Service Location Protocol (SLP).
>
...here, again, the illustration is unclear, confusion arising because the
two Typed Scope Lists shown having identical names.

I also appreciate the effort that Vijay put into this proposal.

--Barr


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