Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 20:37 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 PAA24410 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:37:45 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id PAA16670 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:37:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15536; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:19:58 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id PAA15509 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:19:56 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id PAA23679 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 15:19:53 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dhcp45.summer.secret-wg.org [193.0.5.45]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKFla24967; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 12:15:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0NKIn001862; Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:18:49 +0100 (CET)
Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2002 21:18:48 +0100
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: rdroms@cisco.com, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: Vijay Bhaskar A K <vijayak@india.hp.com>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <200201231851.AAA04289@dce.india.hp.com>
Message-Id: <69035262-103E-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I  dont  agree.  DNS  is  a  very  critical  application.  Most  of  the
> applications  work with names rather than IP  addresses.  The host badly
> needs this for resolving  names.  Moreover,  this option is occurring in
> last 3-4  versions  of the  draft.  Still  now, we didn't  get any mails
> saying  that the  format is wrong.  It means  that, it is  reviewed  and
> accepted  by the WG.  Why do you  want  to  move  out a more  stabilised
> option which is very much required?
>
I have to agree here.   I don't see any reason to remove options about 
which there is no controversy from the DHCPv6 draft.   I think it's fine to 
say "no more," but not to start taking them all out.


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