Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on <draft-ietf-dhc-ddns-resolution-09.txt>

On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 03:31:58PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I don't agree with the changed text about the order in which updates  
> should be done.   The draft should specify one or the other.   I  

Actually, it's funny you should say that.  I harbor the opposite
opinion.

I was thinking that it shouldn't limit the implementor to start at
6.3.1 vs 6.3.2, because I think it would be useful in some environs
to start straight at 6.3.3 and let prereq failures lead you back to
6.3.2 if necessary.

Deleting the first paragraph of 6.3 would read the way I wanted it to,
jump straight into 'you MAY use other implementations'.

Since the first step the document outlines is the query, I think most
under-educated implementors would follow it.

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins