[dhcwg] Multiple Servers (rfc3315bis)

"Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com> Thu, 11 August 2016 14:59 UTC

From: "Templin, Fred L" <Fred.L.Templin@boeing.com>
To: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Multiple Servers (rfc3315bis)
Thread-Index: AdHz4OOWejz5cA9AQ5yxD8sjGAEKog==
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2016 14:58:59 +0000
Message-ID: <6da777d3783649c9a7bcaefa06c2a5d9@XCH15-05-05.nw.nos.boeing.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/X8RpUIobb62FzAViSGlvlL-66lM>
Subject: [dhcwg] Multiple Servers (rfc3315bis)
Precedence: list

In rfc3315(bis), there are only two places where it is implied that a client must
not associate with multiple servers, while the rest of the document remains
silent on this point. But, it should be fine for a client to associate with multiple
servers as long as it can keep track of which configuration information it
received from which server. Therefore, I suggest the following text deletions:

> 14) Section 17, the sentence beginning: "In particular, if the
>     client had some valid bindings and has chosen...". Remove
>     this sentence. Reason - it should be OK for the client to
>     receive bindings from multiple servers if it has some way to
>     keep track of which bindings it received from which servers.
> 
> 16) Section 17.1.10.1, final paragraph, delete this paragraph
>     since the client should be able to associate with multiple
>     servers if it wants to.

Thanks - Fred
fred.l.templin@boeing.com

[dhcwg] Multiple Servers (rfc3315bis) Templin, Fred L