[dhcwg] DUID required in Information-Request message?

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 16:56 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 LAA16191 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:56:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA04405 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:56:28 -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 LAA04160; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:32 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA04134 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:31 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15942 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-85.cisco.com [161.44.149.85]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA02713 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:00 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020123114554.0371df58@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 11:49:18 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Subject: [dhcwg] DUID required in Information-Request message?
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

Open issue from WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt:

* Does the Information-Request message require a DUID?  Could the
   "MUST" in the third paragraph of 18.1.5 be changed to "SHOULD"?  If
   a DUID "SHOULD" be included, text needs to be added pointing out the
   client-specific information (based on identifying the client with a
   DUID) cannot be returned if a DUID is not included.

I propose that "MUST" be changed to "SHOULD"  in the third paragraph of 
18.1.5, and that additional text be added that points out "client-specific 
information (based on identifying the client with a DUID) cannot be 
returned if a DUID is not included".

- Ralph



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