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

OK, I've updated that bullet point in the minutes to read:

    * FQDN should carry 12 bit RCODES (4): RCODES will be dropped from
      FQDN option; RCODE fields in FQDN option will be declared
      "reserved" to preserve backward compatibility with deployed
      implementations

- Ralph

At 01:47 PM 7/30/2003 -0400, Mark Stapp wrote:
>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