Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 26 September 2001 17:27 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 NAA24197; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:27:12 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08581; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:24:24 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA08551 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:24:23 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA24096 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:24:19 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-183.cisco.com [161.44.149.183]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id NAA21080 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:23:47 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010926131053.00ba9d80@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 13:23:14 -0400
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt
In-Reply-To: <200109261429.KAA15509@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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

Thomas - I want to make sure I understand your point
and to clarify the status of existing implementations.

Once draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt is accepted as a standard,
it will be considered as a distinct part of the DHCP
standard.  Existing implementations will still be in
compliance with the DHCP specification in RFC2131 and RFC2132.
However, existing implementations might not be in compliance
with the new option concatenation standard.

With this interpretation, the wording you suggest for the
option concatenation draft would not cause existing
implementations to now become out of compliance with
the DHCP standard.

Do I have this right?

- Ralph

At 10:29 AM 9/26/2001 -0400, Thomas Narten wrote:

>Major issue:
>
>The document goes to great lengths to NOT make existing
>clients/servers out of spec with this ID. This seems misguided. Most
>RFCs define new behavior. That existing implementations don't follow
>the RFC is not a problem. Indeed, the goal is to make sure all future
>implementations (or updates to existing implementations) adhere to the
>new spec.




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