On Nov 10, 2010, at 6:29 PM, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Nov 10, 2010, at 9:36 PM, "Dave Thaler" <[email protected]> wrote: > >> It is my understanding that if the string passed to a name resolver library >> contains dots, no search list should be used. (Reference: RFC 1535) >> >> The Windows name resolver library does strictly adhere to this >> (it never uses a search list with a string containing dots). > > Ah, good to know. In this case, if the behavior described in the current > draft is desired, it does need to be specified, since it differs from the > behavior specified in RFC 1535. However, I think the behavior described in > the draft is unnecessary, so maybe it's better to just get rid of it. >
Fully agreed. Let's keep this thing simple, just as any other FQDN option ever defined for DHCP. Chair hat on: authors, please update the draft to remove any text that will make this option differ from regular FQDN treatment and publish on the normal ID stream. - Alain. _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
