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

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Wed, 26 September 2001 19:35 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 PAA27134; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:35:21 -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 PAA12840; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA12816 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:27:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA27007 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:27:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-183.cisco.com [161.44.149.183]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id PAA10488; Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:26:41 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010926152316.03d8a8d8@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Wed, 26 Sep 2001 15:26:15 -0400
To: Bernard Aboba <aboba@internaut.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Incorporation of WG last call comments in draft-aboba-dhc-domsearch-06.txt
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@raleigh.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.BSF.4.21.0109261153490.26116-100000@internaut.com>
References: <200109261840.OAA16579@rotala.raleigh.ibm.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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

RFC2131 allows for options that can carry
data values longer than 255 bytes, so my understanding,
too, is that the option concatenation standard would
apply to all DHCP options.

- Ralph

At 11:55 AM 9/26/2001 -0700, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> > > >Not sure the reference is normative. This option can use the long option
> > > >encoding if available, but doesn't require it.
> >
> > > Agreed; in fact, I think you could eliminate references to
> > > the long option encoding draft w/o harming your spec...
> >
> > This make sense to me. I will note, however, that current wording in
> > the concat draft could be interpret to suggest that it's intended for
> > future options and maybe less so for existing options. If the intent
> > is in fact that it the concat draft should apply to *all* DHCP
> > options, then taking out the reference would be fine.
> >
> > If that is the intent, I'll go ahead and start the IETF last call on
> > domsearch.
>
>I had thought that concat would apply to all DHCP options that could
>potentially run over the current limit.


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