On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 04:43:00PM -0500, Alain Durand wrote: > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-softwire-ipv6-6rd-07.txt > > Please reply with comments to this thread by 2010.03.08 at 1700 PST
I have reviewed the new DHCPv4 option definition in this draft.
In this text from section 7.1.1;
No more than one instance of the OPTION_6RD DHCP option MUST occur in
a given DHCP packet.
I'm glad there is no discussion of "option fragmenting". I think this
text is simple and clean for that purpose.
I'm a little concerned that the draft makes no mention of the DHCPv4
Parameter Request List (PRL) option, and in its current state (quoted
above) slightly infers that the option will magically appear in DHCP
responses in any networks where the 6rd service is available?
I would like to see a normative requirement for the client to place
the option on its PRL ahead of this sentence, or a non-normative aside
after it (", provided the client requested the option on its Parameter
Request List option." or similar), but I also appreciate if the author
also thinks of this mechanism as "how DHCP works".
In my opinion in this case remembering to place the option on the PRL
is an often overlooked detail, as there are many clients today that
accept certain options without explicit request, and so it's good to
provide implementers with a reminder.
Aside from this more-or-less grammatical and editorial consideration,
I have no other issue with the structure of the option or accompanying
text, and I support the draft's advancement.
--
David W. Hankins BIND 10 needs more DHCP voices.
Software Engineer There just aren't enough in our heads.
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc. http://bind10.isc.org/
pgpDAQenCqIhH.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
