[dhcwg] Change in server identifier between OFFER and ACK
"gvithal ." <gvithal@gmail.com> Sun, 09 June 2013 13:07 UTC
Return-Path: <gvithal@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 689CB21F8976 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ciOyyr7OYLsZ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:07:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-vb0-x22f.google.com (mail-vb0-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400c:c02::22f]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1309921F8546 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-vb0-f47.google.com with SMTP id x14so3733879vbb.34 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=3zerwuZkxoDenTX7UviGOWPwiIdfZlIr24nJLpxbgVc=; b=a0HFY6Icaqw0tGBMGaqWeU9aGdpSIdBBtFjzfVJGqL0Q7K6WmSEyqSBLBg2jl8vZhC K3BrYsG9PtjrUgvkyLUGF01dKN2zQph6Is+mskwkWZjYgEG2RijaCrNGWigImrTplEdH S6fhmDLWyKtY3uWsQ9VMhoINqjOVBCgDWIBmE3S4k+niOS0tXMfftPL/X3oJgQtOHCps 3AU+4EIS2YADBMfHmeX+z7z5Nd30P/EagL2qinciGH/24/MZcyyEyQOyVNJRZahn7628 q6RX4ZEtlCKKzTBKfZNEFi4fNlHGMbI3laxJ/yhGmhLPhdYdaK1UhwfWRWOkjDYtU62i qf1A==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.220.161.2 with SMTP id p2mr3336153vcx.72.1370783257381; Sun, 09 Jun 2013 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.58.88.8 with HTTP; Sun, 9 Jun 2013 06:07:37 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 18:37:37 +0530
Message-ID: <CAAfac2jVpEFS70BR=-532dZyUQ60mz15r_7O37JPkyENfqbiKw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "gvithal ." <gvithal@gmail.com>
To: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11c1e2401ed31204deb8594a"
Subject: [dhcwg] Change in server identifier between OFFER and ACK
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 09 Jun 2013 13:07:39 -0000
As per the standard, is it valid scenario for server identifier to change between OFFER and ACK for the same transaction id (i.e. for the same DORA transaction). If the server identifier changes between OFFER and ACK, what is the expected client behaviour. There does not seem to be any text in RFC 2131 related to this scenario. Thanks, Prasad