Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

["Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <[e-mail]>]

Why MUST the client ignore an Advertise message with no bindings?
What if stateful and stateless options are carried in the same message?
Does this mean the stateless options will be ignored just because the
stateful 
Options failed?

In general, I think this draft addresses an important problem that needs
to be 
solved urgently.  We need to think through carefully the consequences of
the proposed 
solutions, however.

- Wes

On 8/9/12 11:14 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[e-mail]> wrote:

>The authors have requested a working group last call.   The document
>describes some problems that exist in the way DHCP clients handle
>multiple stateful options, and proposes a solution that unifies the
>client state machine to accommodate these issues.
>
>This document could use additional review, so please take the time to
>read it over and comment on it if you have any comments.   If you are in
>favor of advancing the document, please say so.   If you oppose advancing
>it, please say so, and say why.   We will evaluate the consensus based on
>these responses on August 24.
>
>Thanks!
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg