Hi Erik, > -----Original Message----- > From: Erik Nordmark [mailto:nordm...@acm.org] > Sent: Saturday, November 05, 2011 5:32 PM > To: Suresh Krishnan > Cc: Glen Turner; 6man Mailing List; Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden > Subject: Re: 6MAN WG Last Call: <draft-ietf-6man-lineid-02.txt> > > 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.
The corresponding DHCPv4 relay option (defined in RFC3046) and the corresponding DHCPv6 relay option (defined in RFC4649) are both defined as opaque with no character set information. That is what makes definition more difficult. Thanks Suresh -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
