RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Thu, 24 January 2002 13:50 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 IAA21355 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:50:29 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id IAA28307 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:50:32 -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 IAA28044; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:49 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA28019 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id IAA21218 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA18123; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:44 -0500
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 08:41:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Cc: Dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNCEJHDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020124084108.9559F-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

I love Barr's list (well maybe not love) {---)

/jim

On Wed, 23 Jan 2002, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:

> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Lemon
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:19
> >
> > 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.
> >
> ...exactly.  Is it possible to construct a simple test by which to judge an
> option as appropriate for inclusion in the base document?  For example:
> 
> (1) is it required for implementation or deployment of a crucial service
> (for example, DNS or SLP)
> 
> (2) is it essential to implement mandatory or highly desirable functionality
> (such as authentication or security)?
> 
> (3) is it necessary to support transition from IPv4 to IPv6?
> 
> (4) is it currently widely deployed with DHCPv4?
> 
> (5) has the option been stably defined for DHCPv6 for at least several draft
> revisions?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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