IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00.txt

Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU> Wed, 04 February 2004 08:47 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (optimus.ietf.org [132.151.1.19]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26227 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:47:33 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoIga-0002l6-NE for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:47:05 -0500
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i148l4D4010589 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:47:04 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoIgZ-0002kb-6f for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:47:03 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA26161 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:47:01 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIgW-0007A4-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:47:00 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIfZ-00070e-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:46:02 -0500
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIee-0006rz-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:45:04 -0500
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoIeb-0002ZX-VM; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:45:01 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1AoIeY-0002ZH-OY for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:44:58 -0500
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id DAA25988 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 03:44:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIeW-0006qf-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:44:56 -0500
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIdX-0006jU-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:43:56 -0500
Received: from ratree.psu.ac.th ([202.12.73.3]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1AoIcb-0006ZW-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 04 Feb 2004 03:42:58 -0500
Received: from delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (delta.coe.psu.ac.th [172.30.0.98]) by ratree.psu.ac.th (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i148gif08794; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:42:45 +0700 (ICT)
Received: from munnari.OZ.AU (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by delta.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i148gIX15893; Wed, 4 Feb 2004 15:42:19 +0700 (ICT)
From: Robert Elz <kre@munnari.OZ.AU>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-dhc-client-id-00.txt
In-Reply-To: <71BBA40A-5662-11D8-9DEF-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>
References: <71BBA40A-5662-11D8-9DEF-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com> <000001c3ea00$463b0b00$6401a8c0@BVolz> <197.1075807337@munnari.OZ.AU>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2004 15:42:18 +0700
Message-ID: <17359.1075884138@munnari.OZ.AU>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
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>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on ietf-mx.ietf.org
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests=none autolearn=no version=2.60

    Date:        Tue, 3 Feb 2004 10:03:02 -0600
    From:        Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
    Message-ID:  <71BBA40A-5662-11D8-9DEF-000A95D9C74C@fugue.com>

  | What we want is that whenever the client sends a client-identifier 
  | option in a packet, the response from the server contains that client 
  | identifier.   This is a very simple concept - there's no need for 
  | anything fancy.

If this is just for client identifier, and no other option either is,
or ever will be, treated the same, then I agree.   On the other hand, if
there get to be 2, 3, 4 ... options that the server is expected to copy
back into the reply, or to include in the reply (perhaps in modified form)
whenever they appear in a discover/request, then I suspect that creating
a common way to make that clear would be a better idea.

But, whatever works...

kre


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email