Re: [dhcwg] [dhcpv6] UseMulticast

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Thu, 16 May 2002 16:58 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 MAA02180 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:58:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id MAA28292 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:59:02 -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 MAA28080; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:56:07 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA27835 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:53:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp [202.249.10.124]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA01922 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 16 May 2002 12:53:16 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost ([3ffe:501:100f:1041::6]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (8.11.6/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g4GGrR811967 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 May 2002 01:53:28 +0900 (JST)
Date: Fri, 17 May 2002 01:46:26 +0900
Message-ID: <y7vy9ekkplp.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / =?ISO-2022-JP?B?GyRCP0BMQEMjOkgbKEI=?= <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] [dhcpv6] UseMulticast
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D430@EAMBUNT705>
References: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4D430@EAMBUNT705>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.6.1 (Upside Down) Emacs/21.1 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.3 - "Ushinoya")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
X-Dispatcher: imput version 20000228(IM140)
Lines: 26
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

>>>>> On Thu, 16 May 2002 08:07:43 -0500, 
>>>>> "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> said:

> My take is that a Reply MUST always include the Server Identifier
> option (since that identifies the server responding) and it MUST
> include the Client Identifier option if the client sent one.

Okay, I'm fine with this.

> I think the statements such as "no other options" should likely be
> reviewed and perhaps restates as no options containing configuration
> related information. We probably need a blanket statement somewhere
> that clarifies that all responses from a server to a client MUST
> contain:

> - The server identifier of the server.
> - The client identifier of the client if the client provided it.

I agree (except for the server ID in a reply to an
information-request; I'm not sure if this is really necessary, but
this is a different issue).

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp


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