Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining

Artur Guja <> Sat, 22 September 2001 11:02 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id HAA29479; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 07:02:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA17155; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 06:59:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id GAA17137 for <>; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 06:59:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id GAA29454 for <>; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 06:59:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ( []) by (8.11.6/8.11.0) with ESMTP id f8MAxah22732; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:59:37 +0200
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:59:01 +0200
From: Artur Guja <>
X-Mailer: The Bat! (v1.49) UNREG / CD5BF9353B3B7091
Reply-To: Artur Guja <>
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
Message-ID: <>
To: Jim Bound <>
CC: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <>
Subject: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining
In-reply-To: <>
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

JB> If it was a SHOULD would that be fine?  I don't think going back to
JB> solicit in the spec is prudent though?

Of course, going back to SOLICIT is a bit wierd.

But if the client got more than one advertise,
it chooses the best one. If this one fails,
it could settle on a less preferable one.
Of course, it there was only one ADVERTISE,
or the rest of them were unacceptable, the client
MUST abort (in my opinion), or else we could get an
infinite loop of SOLICITs.


dhcwg mailing list