Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts that have gone by...
Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 04 August 2004 04:26 UTC
Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09962; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 00:26:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsDId-0001Y5-LJ; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:22:47 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BsDFK-0001Eu-HX for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:19:22 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09683 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Aug 2004 00:19:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BsDIW-0000Nn-QP for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Aug 2004 00:22:42 -0400
Received: from [66.93.162.248] (0127bhost242.starwoodbroadband.com [12.105.247.242]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F199E1B22D8 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 23:18:29 -0500 (CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v618)
In-Reply-To: <5FC8251E-E5CA-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
References: <001401c479be$e1045080$c3838182@amer.cisco.com> <5FC8251E-E5CA-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@nominum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <73886984-E5CD-11D8-8860-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts that have gone by...
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 21:19:17 -0700
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.618)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 08e48e05374109708c00c6208b534009
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
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>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Hm, let me be more clear about one thing. I agree that it makes intuitive sense that if you have a two-way option, you needn't mention it in the ORO. However, this makes implementation potentially more complicated, particularly in DHCPv6. So I think there's some real value in just requiring that any option the client wants to get back should be specified in the ORO, rather than having some options where you have to ask for them in the ORO, and some options where you do not. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts that… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … PARK SOO HONG
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Kim Kinnear
- RE: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Bernie Volz
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Comment on a couple of option drafts … Ted Lemon