IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Incorporation of WG last call comments in draft-aboba -dhc-domsearch-06.txt

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 27 September 2001 01:11 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 VAA01898; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:11:22 -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 VAA21400; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:08:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id VAA21378 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:08:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA01833 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 21:08:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (205-140-116-229.ip.theriver.com [205.140.116.229]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f8R18Tv25163; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:08:29 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f8R11fZ08240; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:01:41 -0700 (MST)
Message-Id: <200109270101.f8R11fZ08240@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
cc: 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms@cisco.com>, Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Incorporation of WG last call comments in draft-aboba -dhc-domsearch-06.txt
In-Reply-To: Message from "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> of "Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:17:33 EST." <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC697B3697@eambunt705.ena-east.ericsson.se>
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 18:01:41 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
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

I have to agree with Bernie here - the point of referencing the concat
option is to make *sure* that a client that does domsearch (or csr)
also supports concat.   A client that implements domsearch or csr but
not concat then becomes non-conforming.   If domsearch or csr doesn't
*require* concat, then this is not the case, and the server doesn't
know whether or not it can do concat.   So domsearch and csr *must*
require concat.   And this is why concat is worded the way it is - if
it were required across the board, it would be useless, because there
would be no way of telling DHCP agents that support it from DHCP
agents that don't.

			       _MelloN_

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

v2.31.3 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status