IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 19:10 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 OAA21024 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:10:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id OAA12662 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 14:10:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11127; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:48:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA11103 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:48:05 -0500 (EST)
Received: from atlrel9.hp.com (atlrel9.hp.com [156.153.255.214]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA20273 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:48:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from dce.india.hp.com (dce.india.hp.com [15.10.45.122]) by atlrel9.hp.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0D444E00124; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 13:47:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from vijayak@localhost) by dce.india.hp.com (8.8.6 (PHNE_17190)/8.8.6 SMKit7.02) id AAA04289; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:21:52 +0530 (IST)
From: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <200201231851.AAA04289@dce.india.hp.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
To: rdroms@cisco.com
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 00:21:51 +0530
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123115503.00b984b0@funnel.cisco.com> from Ralph Droms at Jan "23, " 2002 "11:57:09" am
X-Mailer: ELM [$Revision: 1.17.214.2 $]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I  dont  agree.  DNS  is  a  very  critical  application.  Most  of  the
applications  work with names rather than IP  addresses.  The host badly
needs this for resolving  names.  Moreover,  this option is occurring in
last 3-4  versions  of the  draft.  Still  now, we didn't  get any mails
saying  that the  format is wrong.  It means  that, it is  reviewed  and
accepted  by the WG.  Why do you  want  to  move  out a more  stabilised
option which is very much required?

> I propose we move Domain Search Option and Domain Name Server Option out of 
> the base DHCPv6 spec, as well...
> 
> - Ralph

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email