RE: [dhcwg] additional option for dhcpv6

> -----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