Pekka, Thanks for the suggestion about separating the drafts. There is a need to more clearly specify what is required for "configuration-only" DHCP service. (There is also a need for a better name; suggestions, anyone?)
I agree with Bernie that writing two separate specs wouldn't be a good idea; I think there would be a lot of overlap between the two specs. What about an "applicability statement" (in a separate doc) that describes in detail how a "configuration-only" client and server would operate? It might be as simple as "implement these sections of the DHCPv6 spec"? - Ralph At 07:09 PM 3/18/2002 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote: >Hi, > >Would it make sense to consider whether separating "stateless DHCPv6" and >the stateful part (~address assignment) to separate drafts would make >sense? > >I think a lot more people would be confortable with DHCPv6 if it was very >simple and supported only the informational records most people would only >use.. and stateful address and such specified in a separate draft? > >Just a thought... > >-- >Pekka Savola "Tell me of difficulties surmounted, >Netcore Oy not those you stumble over and fall" >Systems. Networks. Security. -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords > > > >-------------------------------------------------------------------- >IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List >IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng >FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng >Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] >-------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------
