Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: One more question

From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉<[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 09:02:59 +0900

>>>>> On Sun, 30 Oct 2005 20:00:36 -0500, 
>>>>> "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]> said:

> I'd certainly be OK with REBIND and agree that makes more sense.

> Do we change 3315 to allow REBIND as the msg-type in the Reconfigure
> option? Or leave it RENEW and change the text to state if the client
> receives an authenticated RECONFIGURE message from a server other than
> the one it "negotiated" the binding with, it should send a REBIND (not a
> RENEW).

I prefer the former since it's less confusing.  We'll need some change
to 3315 for either approach anyway, so I don't see the benefit of
overriding the existing msg-type.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[email-masked]

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