On Oct 12, 2010, at 11:49 PM, <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> <mohamed.boucad...@orange-ftgroup.com> wrote: > If we adopt the sub-option scheme with the following values: > 1 AFTR IP Addres > 2 AFTR Name
Mohamed, Roberta, you seem to have a very strong opinion that is based on the principle "someone insists that we have this." I have to ask: what is your goal here? Is your goal to publish an RFC with your name on it that does what you want, even though probably no-one will implement it because it requires code changes to both the server and client? Or is it to get something that works, and can be used? If it's the former, then by all means, ignore our advice. If it's the latter, you might want to consider listening to the advice you're getting. The point of the advice is not to be authoritarian or arbitrary. It's to encourage you to write a spec that will be implemented and widely deployed, because it will require no code changes on DHCP servers or clients. David's suggestion to use suboptions wasn't necessary. You can use both FQDN and IP address, and just require that the client request both. The problem with this is that you gain nothing over just doing FQDN in this case, since the client must implement a resolver in case the server doesn't send the IP address option. I think you are driving very hard for a Pyrrhic victory. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list Softwires@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
