Bernie Volz (volz)
mailto:40cisco@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Hi:
Looking at this primarily from the DHCP perspective ... regarding
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/,
these DHCPv6 options are formatted properly (as per RFC7227 and st
, dns-priv...@ietf.org ,
Bernie Volz (volz) , homenet@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC started --
draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options-12
Hi,
Thank you all for the feedbacks. I will perform the editorial once we have
settled the terminology.
Regarding the use of a DHCP Relay, we
Hi:
Looking at this primarily from the DHCP perspective ... regarding
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-homenet-naming-architecture-dhc-options/,
these DHCPv6 options are formatted properly (as per RFC7227 and standard
practices).
I just have some nits:
- In 4.2, in the
eferenced symbolically in the Internet-Drafts that describe them,
and shall be assigned numeric codes by IANA when approved for
publication as an RFC.
Two "BV>" comments in-line below.
* Bernie
From: Daniel Migault
Sent: Thursday, April 1, 2021 12:19 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Typically a server would grant the requested address in the DHCPREQUEST unless
there was a reason it could not, for example:
- Address is no longer valid for the network segment
- Address is in use by another device
It is probably best NOT to NAK something unless there is a good reason to.
for OPTION_PD_EXCLUDE makes some sense?
- Bernie
From: dhcwg [mailto:dhcwg-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Athanasios Douitsis
Sent: Tuesday, November 19, 2013 7:40 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: rad...@ietf.org; Michael Richardson; Roberta Maglione (robmgl);
dh...@ietf.org WG; homenet@ietf.org
Subject
