Re: [dhcwg] Minutes from meeting in SLC, 12/10

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Tue, 08 January 2002 02:28 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 VAA03272 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:28:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id VAA01560 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:28:05 -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 VAA01399; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:16:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA01377 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:16:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (cichlid.adsl.duke.edu [152.16.64.203]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03158 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:16:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g082FnQ02950; Mon, 7 Jan 2002 21:15:49 -0500
Message-Id: <200201080215.g082FnQ02950@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: Steve Gonczi <steve@relicore.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Minutes from meeting in SLC, 12/10
In-Reply-To: Message from "Steve Gonczi" <steve@relicore.com> of "Mon, 07 Jan 2002 17:59:47 EST." <BFELJLKGHEJOPOPGJBKKMEEECAAA.steve@relicore.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Jan 2002 21:15:49 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.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

> As I recall it did not seem reasonable to mandate 
> site admin policy. There was a discussion on the WG list
> at the time, and we ended up making the _presence_ of this
> knob optional.

Right. If the implementation is optional, the operator may not have
the option to enable, i.e., if the products didn't implement the
feature.

> Perhaps, we should mandate the _support_ of this option
> in implementations, and just allow it to be turned off.

That might have been better. And would it have caused a lot of
hardship to implement?

Thomas

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