Re: [dhcwg] Comments on draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-03

On Wed, Aug 11, 2004 at 05:58:04PM -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
> I believe this really is more appropriate in
> draft-ietf-dhc-implementation-*.txt, though the (01) draft appears to have

I don't have a copy of that draft, so I can only guess that it
attempts to clarify the server's behaviour in regards to the original
Client Identifier?

How is that the right place for defining the expected behaviour of
the server when it encounters the v6 DUID from v4 clients that
previously were only identified by chaddr?

Sure, if we decide not to go ahead with the v6 DUID (not likely), I
think reviving that draft would be noble, but...I like the v6 DUID.

I think we should just define the sane and rational behaviour we
expect of the server when it encounters the mixed identities, since
we already appear to have a consensus on what that should be.

Sending the draft to RFC knowing full well we're going to have to
submit similar clarifying work on its contents later seems like a
lot more work to me.  We could just avoid all that.

-- 
David W. Hankins		"If you don't do it right the first time,
Operations Engineer			you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins