IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Interface

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Fri, 21 September 2001 05:28 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 BAA03103; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:28:35 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA02250; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:25:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id BAA02228 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:25:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id BAA02943 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 01:25:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (205-140-116-229.ip.theriver.com [205.140.116.229]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f8L4vAv12987; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 21:57:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f8L5Ovt00458; Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:24:57 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200109210524.f8L5Ovt00458@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com>
cc: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>, "'Guja, ArturX'" <ArturX.Guja@intel.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Interface
In-Reply-To: Message from Erik Nordmark <Erik.Nordmark@eng.sun.com> of "Thu, 20 Sep 2001 19:11:37 +0200." <Roam.SIMC.2.0.6.1001005897.27649.nordmark@bebop.france>
Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 22:24:57 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
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

I don't know what to say, Erik.   It feels to me like you are trying
to open the protocol to breakage in order to be pedantic.   What
matters to me is not the precise wording of RFC2119, but rather
whether or not the protocol specification we arrive at will result in
interoperable implementations.

If we turn this particular MUST into a SHOULD, I promise you that
there will be interoperability problems.  I speak on the basis of a
wealth of personal experience with DHCP client implementations.

I argued with you about the particulars because you gave IEEE802.3ad
as an example of why we need to change this MUST into a SHOULD, and it
was not a valid example.   So I would really appreciate it if we could
keep this as a MUST.

			       _MelloN_

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email