Re: [dhcwg] Renumbering stateless DHCPv6 as dhc WG charter item

[Tim Chown <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Mar 16, 2004 at 08:30:00AM -0500, Bernie Volz wrote:
> Would it make sense to revise the text to also include "suggested"
> client-detected events, such as receiving Router Advertisements with a
> new prefix, that might trigger a client generated request?
> 
> Other than that, the proposed text is fine.

I agree there are other "events" and scenarios to maybe consider, especially
from the client perspective.  I think whoever said we'll get a better picture
from the DNA WG work has a good point, so we should track that closely.

Basically I think we should adopt the lifetime draft as a "general fit"
solution to refine (as there is currently a gap) and in parallel think about 
other cues and scenarios that can be described in the problem statement 
draft.    There may then be a need for other work to emerge, for specific
identified scenarios.

Getting both drafts adopted will help us focus on that task.

Tim

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg