RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specifi c?
"Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com> Fri, 09 April 2004 16:41 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 MAA06863 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:41:09 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBz3a-0008Kc-1x for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:40:42 -0400
Received: (from exim@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i39GegYn032022 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:40:42 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BBz3Z-0008KP-UB for dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:40:41 -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 MAA06836 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:40:38 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BBz3Y-00072b-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:40:40 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BByzY-0006bn-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:36:32 -0400
Received: from optimus.ietf.org ([132.151.1.19]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BByx7-0006Ho-00 for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:34:01 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=www1.ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BByx6-00079t-S6; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:34:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by optimus.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.20) id 1BByoE-0005Xa-0O for dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:24:50 -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 MAA05643 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 12:24:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf-mx ([132.151.6.1]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BByoA-0005Mj-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:24:46 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BBylY-000516-00 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:22:04 -0400
Received: from auemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.223.163] helo=auemail2.firewall.lucent.com) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BByhh-0004bV-00; Fri, 09 Apr 2004 12:18:05 -0400
Received: from nl0006exch001h.wins.lucent.com (h135-85-76-62.lucent.com [135.85.76.62]) by auemail2.firewall.lucent.com (Switch-2.2.8/Switch-2.2.8) with ESMTP id i39GHK120536; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 11:17:21 -0500 (CDT)
Received: by nl0006exch001h.nl.lucent.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id <1690H8XB>; Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:31:47 +0200
Message-ID: <7D5D48D2CAA3D84C813F5B154F43B15503FD6B69@nl0006exch001u.nl.lucent.com>
From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <bwijnen@lucent.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org, iesg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specifi c?
Date: Fri, 09 Apr 2004 17:31:46 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72)
Content-Type: text/plain
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=AWL autolearn=no version=2.60
Fine by me. SO let us add a few lines that states this ecplicitly in the document. The v6Ops WG just wnet through all RFCs to list which ones are IPv6 hostile/unfriendly. So if we approve any new documents that are specific for IPv4 only, let us then add a few words that say so and explain why, so that this is clear in the future. Thanks, Bert > -----Original Message----- > From: Bernie Volz [mailto:volz@cisco.com] > Sent: donderdag 8 april 2004 22:04 > To: dhcwg@ietf.org; iesg@ietf.org > Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be > IPv4-specific? > > > YES! > > As this specification deals with DHCPv4 (is extends DHCPv4), it should > be IPv4 specific. > > It is a separate issue as to whether corresponding > functionality will be > needed for DHCPv6 and something that the WG should take up. > > - Bernie > > -----Original Message----- > From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of > Ralph Droms > Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:25 PM > To: dhcwg@ietf.org > Subject: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be > IPv4-specific? > > > Bert Wijnen: > > Discuss: > - It seems to be implicitly IPv4 specific without > explaining/justifying > why > and uses "IP address" to mean IPv4 addresses only. Do we not want > them > to either be IPv4/v6 agnostic or to be specific in stating > that they > are IPv4 only if such is the case and justified? > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
- RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly… Wijnen, Bert (Bert)