IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt (SECOND REQUEST)

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Thu, 30 October 2003 21:53 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 QAA15828; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:53:23 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFKiz-0007Sl-Qn; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:53:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AFKi5-0007K0-82 for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:52:05 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id QAA15734 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:51:54 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFKi3-0003E8-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:52:03 -0500
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AFKi2-0003Do-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 16:52:02 -0500
Received: from [10.0.1.4] (dsl093-187-232.chi2.dsl.speakeasy.net [66.93.187.232]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 45FAF1B2001; Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:46:36 -0600 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <000001c39f2d$52608db0$6401a8c0@BVolz>
References: <000001c39f2d$52608db0$6401a8c0@BVolz>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v606)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <3AB84DEA-0B23-11D8-A8A6-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, 'Ted Lemon' <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-mipadvert-opt-01.txt (SECOND REQUEST)
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2003 15:51:34 -0600
To: Bernie Volz <volz@metrocast.net>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.606)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Oct 30, 2003, at 3:32 PM, Bernie Volz wrote:
> But, what's the point of sending a Rapid Reply option with a flag byte 
> of
> False? It really is no different than sending no option.

That's true.   I don't expect you to send the Rapid Reply option if the 
value is false.   And I agree that in the other cases, a flag byte 
value of zero might be meaningful, and in this case it is not.   But 
using a flag byte in all cases is consistent, and in a case like this I 
think consistency is worth a small sacrifice in space, because it makes 
implementations easier.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email