IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* Minutes from dhc WG meeting at IETF 57

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 30 July 2003 17:31 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 NAA09560; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:31:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hum1-0002tm-RY; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:30:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hulE-0002rd-Ed for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:29:12 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA09476 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:29:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hulC-000227-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:29:10 -0400
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com ([171.68.223.138]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hul7-00021p-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:29:09 -0400
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.6/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6UHPvq5008152; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:28:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k01.cisco.com ([161.44.65.215]) by flask.cisco.com (Mirapoint Messaging Server MOS 3.3.3-GR) with ESMTP id ABC54376; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030730132104.04394898@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:22:31 -0400
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* Minutes from dhc WG meeting at IETF 57
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200307301207.50404.mellon@fugue.com>
References: <4.3.2.7.2.20030730062737.04270d38@funnel.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030730062737.04270d38@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

Oops.  Both I and the taker-of-the-minutes got this point wrong.  Good 
catch.  So, if we decided to call these fields "reserved", will RCODES 
simply not be carried in the option?

- Ralph

At 12:07 PM 7/30/2003 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>On Wednesday 30 July 2003 05:29, Ralph Droms wrote:
> >     * FQDN should carry 12 bit RCODES (4): no, for backward
> >       compatibility
>
>My recollection is that we decided to call these fields "reserved" to 
>preserve
>backward compatibility, so as to eliminate the possibility that this question
>might come up again.   Am I misremembering?


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

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status