Re: [dhcwg] Interface

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 11 October 2001 20:57 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 QAA25244; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:57:02 -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 QAA21541; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:56:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id QAA21519 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:56:22 -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 QAA25211 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:56:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com ([161.44.150.36]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id QAA21997 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:55:55 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20011011164936.04732738@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2001 16:57:16 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Interface
In-Reply-To: <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1002831587.13330.nordmark@bebop.france>
References: <"Your message with ID" <4.3.2.7.2.20011010173146.00bb4d80@funnel.cisco.com>
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

Following up on Erik's comments...

So, what I wrote in the -20d rev turns out to be (I did some last minute 
wordsmithing that [may or may not have] improved the readability:

    The Confirm message MUST be transmitted on the link that the
    interface for which configuration information is being obtained
    is attached to.  The client SHOULD send the message through that
    interface.  If the client has multiple interfaces attached to the
    same link, the client MAY choose to send the message through another
    interface attached to that link.

and (for those messages that might be unicast):

    If the client multicasts the Request message, the message MUST be
    transmitted on the link that the interface for which configuration
    information is being obtained is attached to.  The client SHOULD
    send the message through that interface.  If the client has multiple
    interfaces attached to the same link, the client MAY choose to send
    the message through another interface attached to that link.

I will substitute Erik's suggested replacement for the last sentence:

The client MAY send the message through another interface attached
to the same link if and only if the client is certain that the two
interfaces are attached to the same link.

- Ralph

At 10:19 PM 10/11/2001 +0200, Erik Nordmark wrote:

> > The client MUST send the message on an interface that will cause
> > the message to be delivered to the agent through the link to which
> > the interface the client is trying to obtain configuration
> > information for is attached.  The client SHOULD send the
> > message through the interface for which the client is trying to
> > obtain configuration information.  The client MAY send the message
> > through another interface if the client has multiple interfaces
> > on the same link.
>
>Yes, that was what I was trying to say.
>
>I think it might make sense to make the last sentence stronger by
>saying
>  The client MAY send the message
>  through another interface attached to the same link if and only if the 
> client
>  is certain that the two interfaces are attached to the same link.
>
>   Erik


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