Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 10 October 2001 14:45 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 KAA11555; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:45:06 -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 KAA18005; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:44:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id KAA17982 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:44:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA11470 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:44:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-111.cisco.com [161.44.149.111]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id KAA24221; Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:42:39 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011010103715.03a6e428@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2001 10:40:34 -0400
To: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining
Cc: Artur Guja <skybird@3miasto.net>, "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010922122232.6818C-100000@www.bit-net.com>
References: <1141412763.20010922125901@3miasto.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
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
I've changed the text (section 16.1.1) to allow selection of a less-preferable server. An interim rev of the DHCPv6 spec is now available at http://www.dhcp.org - Ralph At 12:23 PM 9/22/2001 -0400, Jim Bound wrote: >ralph and I got input and it will be clear in the next rev that the client >can go use less preferred advertise if it chooses. making it a SHOULD >would permit implementors to do this. SHOULD means do this unless you >have a really good reason to not do this. > > >/jim > > >On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Artur Guja wrote: > > > > > JB> If it was a SHOULD would that be fine? I don't think going back to > > JB> solicit in the spec is prudent though? > > > > Of course, going back to SOLICIT is a bit wierd. > > > > But if the client got more than one advertise, > > it chooses the best one. If this one fails, > > it could settle on a less preferable one. > > Of course, it there was only one ADVERTISE, > > or the rest of them were unacceptable, the client > > MUST abort (in my opinion), or else we could get an > > infinite loop of SOLICITs. > > > > Artur > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >dhcwg mailing list >dhcwg@ietf.org >http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Overconstraining Guja, ArturX
- Re: [dhcwg] Overconstraining Jim Bound
- Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining Artur Guja
- Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining Jim Bound
- Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining Ralph Droms