On Tue, Feb 23, 2010 at 11:28:21PM +0100, Ole Troan wrote: > thanks for the review. I have to admit that I didn't know the PRL option > existed. > > something like this? > > The CE SHOULD include a Parameter Request List Option [RFC2132] for > the OPTION_6RD. No more than one instance of the OPTION_6RD DHCP > option MUST occur in a given DHCP packet. Provisioning of a CE > router connected to multiple 6rd domains is outside the scope of this > protocol specification.
Yes, I think that would be entirely satisfactory. I'm sorry such a minor editorial item comes so late, I admit that in previous reviews I was focused on the option's structure and not so much the accompanying text. Minor discussion for edification; Normally I would want that to be a 'MUST', in a draft describing just the option. A client implementing the option has no sensible way to expect a value will be returned if it isn't on the PRL (unless the client sends no PRL, which isn't very realistic today). But because this draft does much more than measure conformance to the option specification, I think SHOULD is entirely appropriate. -- 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/
pgpksRJeB91BK.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
