Re: [dhcwg] Questions about Invalid Option : I'd like clarification

[Damien Neil <[e-mail]>]

On Mar 5, 2007, at 5:43 PM, Bernie Volz ((volz)) wrote:
> I'm thinking that we might just want to drop the first paragraph of
> Section 15. And, perhaps the second paragraph's requirements be moved
> into the corresponding subsections for the messages. This makes it
> easier to find all the hard rules for each message.

I agree strongly.  As you pointed out earlier, there is little reason  
for recommending that implementations perform additional work simply  
to cause potential interoperability issues.  I suspect that few  
implementations would (or should) choose to implement the checks  
described in that paragraph.

               - Damien

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg