On Apr 14, 2004, at 3:48 AM, Ralph Droms wrote:
Jinmei-san,
I think DHCPv6 ought to be cited as the protocol for other configuration
information, as well.
This is the logical extension.
However, it seems to me the phrase "stateful protocol for *other*
configurations" is a little misleading. I think the word "stateful" could
be dropped.
Hummm, what about a DHCPv6 server that would return different values of some config parameters
for different requesting nodes?
I think the whole notion of stateful vs stateless is a bit misleading/confusing anyway, so maybe you're right,
we should drop the word.
- Alain.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
