IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Wed, 23 January 2002 23:45 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 SAA29549 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:45:25 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA23580 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:45:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23214; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:30:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA23182 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:30:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA29247 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 18:30:41 -0500 (EST)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([64.170.119.193]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GQE000YZZZ7GI@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:30:44 -0800 (PST)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:29:48 -0800
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-reply-to: <69035262-103E-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
To: Dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNCEJHDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4807.1700
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:19
>
> I don't see any reason to remove options about which there is no
> controversy from the DHCPv6 draft.   I think it's fine to
> say "no more," but not to start taking them all out.
>
...exactly.  Is it possible to construct a simple test by which to judge an
option as appropriate for inclusion in the base document?  For example:

(1) is it required for implementation or deployment of a crucial service
(for example, DNS or SLP)

(2) is it essential to implement mandatory or highly desirable functionality
(such as authentication or security)?

(3) is it necessary to support transition from IPv4 to IPv6?

(4) is it currently widely deployed with DHCPv4?

(5) has the option been stably defined for DHCPv6 for at least several draft
revisions?



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

v2.15.0 | Report a Bug | By Email