Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts that have gone by...

[PARK SOO HONG <[e-mail]>]

Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingle

>However, I would like to point out one problem with this, and request 
>that the authors of these drafts (I'm thinking specifically of the 
>haopt and tep drafts) add some text to talk about what the client 
>should send in the parameter request list.

So I simply wrote some text in my draft.

 

The DHCP client will use this option to create a tunnel end-point address

for configuring IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel. The client may receive tunnel services

in this option that it does not support or has not been configured to access.

Likewise, a client may receive an option that tunnel services for which no

corresponding DHCP option was supplied. Clients will interpret this option

in a system-specific manner whose specification is outside the scope of

this document.

 

 

Isn't it enough to satisfy your concern ?

This text is our implementation-basis

 

 

Regards

 

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)

Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg