IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* Minutes from dhc WG meeting at IETF 57

Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com> Wed, 30 July 2003 17:49 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 NAA10262; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:49:03 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hv3R-00043z-Kj; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:48:01 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 19hv3A-00043A-6v for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:47:44 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10217 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:47:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hv38-0002Ck-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:47:42 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-2-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.71] helo=sj-iport-2.cisco.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 19hv37-0002CV-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:47:41 -0400
Received: from cisco.com (171.71.177.238) by sj-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 30 Jul 2003 10:50:04 -0700
Received: from mjs-w2k01.cisco.com ([10.86.146.21]) by sj-core-5.cisco.com (8.12.9/8.12.6) with ESMTP id h6UHl8LI001970; Wed, 30 Jul 2003 10:47:08 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030730134559.01ecce30@goblet.cisco.com>
X-Sender: mjs@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 13:47:08 -0400
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
From: Mark Stapp <mjs@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* Minutes from dhc WG meeting at IETF 57
Cc: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20030730132104.04394898@funnel.cisco.com>
References: <200307301207.50404.mellon@fugue.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030730062737.04270d38@funnel.cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20030730062737.04270d38@funnel.cisco.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-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>

Yes, that was my understanding. We will just leave the 'reserved' fields as 
tombstones to preserve the option's physical layout.

-- Mark

At 01:22 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Ralph Droms wrote:
>Oops.  Both I and the taker-of-the-minutes got this point wrong.  Good 
>catch.  So, if we decided to call these fields "reserved", will RCODES 
>simply not be carried in the option?
>
>- Ralph
>
>At 12:07 PM 7/30/2003 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>On Wednesday 30 July 2003 05:29, Ralph Droms wrote:
>> >     * FQDN should carry 12 bit RCODES (4): no, for backward
>> >       compatibility
>>
>>My recollection is that we decided to call these fields "reserved" to 
>>preserve
>>backward compatibility, so as to eliminate the possibility that this question
>>might come up again.   Am I misremembering?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


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

v2.26.15 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status