Subject: FW: [dhcwg] Reminder! dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-01

From: "Richard Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 21:13:43 -0700

duh!  left out something....

(4) Section 4.4, Changes from RFC2132, replacement text
would be improved by the addition of a diagram.

--Barr

-----Original Message-----
From: Richard Barr Hibbs [mailto:[email-masked]]
Sent: Thursday, 15 April 2004 21:05
To: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Reminder! dhc WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-01

I support advancing this draft, but have a couple of minor
suggestions that I believe the authors should consider.

(1) Section 1.0 Applicability, second sentence:  "DHCPv4
servers implementations...." SHOULD read "DHCPv4 server
implementations...."

(2) Section 2.1 Client identities are ephemeral, last
sentence:  "...domain name as published through the DHCP
server" probably SHOULD read "...domain name as published
through the DHCPv4 server" as this paragraph is discussing
an issue with RFC 2132.  In other places in the draft DHCPv4
and DHCPv6 were separately identified where appropriate, and
jointly identified as DHCP when appropriate.

(3) Section 4.3 Changes from RFC2131, last sentence, "...is
replaced by the text, 'The client MUST explicitly provide a
client identifier through the "client identifier" option'"
would be improved by the addition of the following wording,
"...and MUST use the SAME client identifier for ALL
messages."

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ralph Droms
> Sent: Monday, 12 April 2004 08:52
>
> This message is a reminder of the WG last call on
> "Node-Specific Client Identifiers for DHCPv4"
> <draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-01>.  The last call
> will conclude at 5PM on 4/16/04.
>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg