Subject: Announcement of WG last call for <draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt>

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:00:00 -0400

This message announces a DHC WG last call for "Encoding Long DHCP Options" 
<draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt>.  At the WG meeting in London the WG agreed 
to go to WG last call for this draft immediately after IETF-51.

Please forward any comments you may have on this draft to 
[email-masked] by Friday, August 24.

- Ralph Droms

---

From: John Schnizlein <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:14:02 -0400

At 01:00 PM 8/13/2001, Ralph Droms wrote:
>This message announces a DHC WG last call for "Encoding Long DHCP Options" <draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt>.  At the WG meeting in London the WG agreed to go to WG last call for this draft immediately after IETF-51.
>
>Please forward any comments you may have on this draft to [email-masked] by Friday, August 24.

Sorry I did not catch this earlier.
Before going much further, let's get the spelling errors fixed:
"rendesvous" should be "rendezvous"
"behaviour" should be "behavior"
"seperate" should be "separate".
Clippings for the context where these errors occur below:
Behavior and separate spelling errors are repeated consistently
(as if the dictionary rather than the author is wrong).

John

     Options
        DHCP options are collections of data with type codes that
        indicate how the options should be used.   Options can specify
        information that is required for the DHCP protocol,
        IP stack configuration parameters for the client, information
        allowing the client to rendesvous with DHCP servers, and so
        on.

The aggregate option buffer

     This behaviour only applies in cases where this specification is
     applicable, as previously defined in the Applicability section.
     DHCP options can be stored in the DHCP packet in three seperate
     portions of the packet.   
...
     This complicates the description of the option splitting
     mechanism because there are three seperate buffers into which
     split options may be stored.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 14:53:33 -0400

> Before going much further, let's get the spelling errors fixed:

I think fixing speling erors is a great idea, but it is also trivial.
I will fix those, but the real question is, are there substantive
issues that we should be aware of.   :'}

			       _MelloN_

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 15:36:09 -0400

WG members - during WG last call discussions, comments on problems like 
speling erors can go directly to the draft authors, while the mailing list 
should be reserved for comments on more substantive issues.

- Ralph

---

From: "Paul Roberts" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 20:39:21 +0100

Just my 2p's worth, was the draft written by a Brit? We do actually spell
behaviour with a "u" - in fact it looks downright weird without it, but
let's not get into the way American's have canibalised the English language
since achieving independence! ;-)

Paul (tongue firmly in cheek!)