Subject: DHCP Auto-Configure Option Draft

From: "Ryan Troll" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 21:15:55 -0500 (EST)

I've submitted a new version of this draft to the archive.  This version contains all of the requested changes per the IESG last call.  The only outstanding issue I know of is Mike Carney's comment of 12/17/98:

	- Using DHCPOFFERs w/ a yiaddr of 0.0.0.0 violates RFC2131. Rather than
	  overloading a DHCPOFFER, why not define a new message type?

I know that what I'm suggesting is basicly a hack to get this functionality into the existing protocol, with no major changes.  A new option would be another way to go.  I can't say which would be better, if there is a better way.

What do the rest of you think?

-Ryan

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:09:53 -0500 (EST)

At 9:21 PM -0500 1/24/99, Ryan Troll wrote:
>I've submitted a new version of this draft to the archive.  This version
>contains all of the requested changes per the IESG last call.  The only
>outstanding issue I know of is Mike Carney's comment of 12/17/98:
>
>
>I know that what I'm suggesting is basicly a hack to get this
>functionality into the existing protocol, with no major changes.  A new
>option would be another way to go.  I can't say which would be better, if
>there is a better way.
>

I would like to get this draft to last call in time for the IESG to
consider it prior to the next IETF.  That means it should go to last call
no later than early next week.  If you have any comments on Ryan's issue,
please respond to the mailing list before this coming Friday, 1/29.

- Ralph