[dhcwg] Re: Last Call: DHCP Domain Search Option to Proposed Standard

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Wed, 24 October 2001 23:56 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 TAA17395 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:56:00 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA03876 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:56:01 -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 TAA03756; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:46:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA03727 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:46:36 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hygro.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA17280 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:46:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hygro.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by hygro.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id f9ONh4v05425; Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:43:05 -0400
Message-Id: <200110242343.f9ONh4v05425@hygro.adsl.duke.edu>
To: "Bernard Aboba" <aboba@internaut.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: Message from "Mon, 01 Oct 2001 14:43:37 EDT." <200110011843.OAA12437@astro.cs.utk.edu>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 19:43:04 -0400
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: Last Call: DHCP Domain Search Option to Proposed Standard
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

IETF Last Call has ended on this document, and I recall that Keith
Moore had some comments. Not sure if any other issues were raised.

Note that as the document is currently written, I believe it has a
normative dependency on the draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt ID. There was
some discussion about whether that was necessary or not, but I'm not
sure what the final resolution was. In any case, I think wording
changes would be need to make the reference non-normative. If the
intention is that the reference be normative, we need the other ID to
move forward as well.

Are there any other issues that need to be resolved?

Once the remaining issues are resolved and a new ID is out, I can
bring the document before the IESG for consideration.

Thomas

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