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, 3 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