IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Sat, 22 September 2001 16:26 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 MAA02109; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:26:14 -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 MAA23336; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:24:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA23311 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:24:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id MAA02102 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:24:04 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA12397; Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:23:55 -0400
Date: Sat, 22 Sep 2001 12:23:55 -0400
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Artur Guja <skybird@3miasto.net>
Cc: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Overconstraining
In-Reply-To: <1141412763.20010922125901@3miasto.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010922122232.6818C-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"
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

ralph and I got input and it will be clear in the next rev that the client
can go use less preferred advertise if it chooses.  making it a SHOULD
would permit implementors to do this.  SHOULD means do this unless you
have a really good reason to not do this.


/jim


On Sat, 22 Sep 2001, Artur Guja wrote:

> 
> JB> If it was a SHOULD would that be fine?  I don't think going back to
> JB> solicit in the spec is prudent though?
> 
> Of course, going back to SOLICIT is a bit wierd.
> 
> But if the client got more than one advertise,
> it chooses the best one. If this one fails,
> it could settle on a less preferable one.
> Of course, it there was only one ADVERTISE,
> or the rest of them were unacceptable, the client
> MUST abort (in my opinion), or else we could get an
> infinite loop of SOLICITs.
> 
> Artur
> 
> 


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email