On 11/5/11 6:36 AM, Suresh Krishnan wrote:
If the authors decide that opaque is desirable then they should define
the textual representation of the field. That way the contents of the
field are defined identically across different manufacturers' router
configuration languages, ISP provisioning databases, etc.
Will do. Would a simple statement e.g. that it is a null terminated text
string be sufficient or did you want more details?
Or should we refer to the corresponding DHCPv4 relay option? I think the
simple case is when operators reuse the syntax they use for line
identification with DHCPv4. But I haven't look at exactly how that DHCP
option is specified.
Erik
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
