Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 20:40 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 PAA24592 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:40:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA16760 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:40:25 -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 PAA16410; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:33:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA16383 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:33:15 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA24234 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:33:12 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dhcp45.summer.secret-wg.org [193.0.5.45]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKT6a24999; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:29:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKW8001878; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:32:08 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:32:07 +0100
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comments on 22 rev of the draft
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200201231848.AAA04251@dce.india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <45320437-1040-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
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

> But, tell me as an  implementator  of DHCPv4, don't you feel it is worth
> adding the text for this, atleast as an implementator notes?

No!   I don't think there's any reason to tell people to implement it this 
way.   Maybe I'm interpreting what you're saying too strictly - I would not 
object to language like this:

   The DHCP server should (lowercase!) allocate new leases in such a way 
that it does not offer the same IP address to two clients in two successive 
DHCP Advertise messages if one client fails to respond to a DHCP Advertise 
before the second client sends a DHCP Solicit message.

(or something to that effect)


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