Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #18 (XML 3315): ORO - mandatory?

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 22 Mar 2015 20:30:43 -0000

#18: ORO - mandatory?

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 Note: RFC 7083 (Modification to Default Values of SOL_MAX_RT and
 INF_MAX_RT) requires including ORO, so this technically means this becomes
 a non-issue, as we will need to say the for a Solicit client MUST include
 ORO with at least SOL_MAX_RT, and for Information-Request includes ORO
 with INF_MAX_RT.

-- 
------------------------------+-----------------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]    |       Owner:
     Type:  editorial-change  |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P4 minor          |   Milestone:  C awaiting consensus
Component:  XML 3315          |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                    |    Due Date:
------------------------------+-----------------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/18#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>