Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 09 Jan 2005 06:54:31 -0500

There was one comment during the WG last call on
draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4-03:

http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg04395.html

Once the comment has been discussed on the WG mailing list, and
a new revision published (if necessary), I'll schedule another
WG last call for this document.

- Ralph

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

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 2005 12:00:22 -0500

I support moving this document forward with:
A) the minor corrections pointed out in the David's message, AND
B) with the provision that section 4.4 is corrected. I'd suggest to replace:

  The text in section 9.14, beginning with "The client identifier MAY
  consist of" through "that meet this requirement for uniqueness." is
  replaced with "the client identifier consists of a type field whose
  value is normally 255, followed by a two-byte type field, followed
  by the contents of the identifier.  The two-byte type field and the
  format of the contents of the identifier are defined in RF3315,
  section 9."  The text "its minimum length is 2" in the following
  paragraph is deleted.

With:

  The text in section 9.14, beginning with "The client identifier MAY
  consist of" through "that meet this requirement for uniqueness." is
  replaced with "the client identifier consists of a type field whose
  value is normally 255, followed by a four-byte IA_ID field, followed
  by the DUID for the client as defined in RF3315, section 9."  The
  text "its minimum length is 2" in the following paragraph is deleted.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> On Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Sunday, January 09, 2005 6:55 AM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4
> 
> 
> Once the comment has been discussed on the WG mailing list, 
> and a new revision published (if necessary), I'll schedule 
> another WG last call for this document.
> 
> - Ralph
>