RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

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