RE: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option

Fine by me. I'll double check but I don't believe that I mentioned stateful
in the current draft.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2004 1:21 PM
> To: <dhcwg@ietf.org> <dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6 'zone suffix' option
> 
> 
> On Nov 10, 2004, at 10:13 AM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> > By putting it in the IA_* options, we're restricting it to stateful
> > (PD or
> > NA) but I don't think that's an issue (especially if we 
> don't use it to
> > communicate the zone name).
> 
> I would encourage you not to put any language in the draft that 
> explicitly refers to stateful versus not stateful.   I think it's 
> likely that we will want to support dynamic DNS updates with the 
> Information Request message using the FQDN option.   In this 
> case, the 
> client would have to send an IA option, in order to identify 
> it for the 
> purposes of doing the DNS update.   So if you don't explicitly say 
> anything about stateful vs. non-stateful, we don't need to 
> update your 
> draft when we write a draft explaining how to do updates with 
> stateless 
> DHCPv6.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 

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