>> 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.
I took the SHOULD from RFC3315, which has that for the ORO option. I couldn't find any other DHCP option RFCs with SHOULD or MUST for the PRL option. cheers, Ole _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
