Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be IPv4-specifi c?

From: "Wijnen, Bert (Bert)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Apr 2004 17:31:46 +0200

Fine by me. SO let us add a few lines that states this
ecplicitly in the document.

The v6Ops WG just wnet through all RFCs to list which ones
are IPv6 hostile/unfriendly. 
So if we approve any new documents that are specific for IPv4
only, let us then add a few words that say so and explain
why, so that this is clear in the future.

Thanks,
Bert 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bernie Volz [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: donderdag 8 april 2004 22:04
> To: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be
> IPv4-specific?
> 
> 
> YES!
> 
> As this specification deals with DHCPv4 (is extends DHCPv4), it should
> be IPv4 specific.
> 
> It is a separate issue as to whether corresponding 
> functionality will be
> needed for DHCPv6 and something that the WG should take up.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
> Ralph Droms
> Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2004 8:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Subject: [dhcwg] Should the leasequery spec explicitly be 
> IPv4-specific?
> 
> 
> Bert Wijnen:
> 
> Discuss:
> - It seems to be implicitly IPv4 specific without 
> explaining/justifying
> why
>    and uses "IP address" to mean IPv4 addresses only. Do we not want
> them
>    to either be IPv4/v6 agnostic or to be specific in stating 
> that they
>    are IPv4 only if such is the case and justified?
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg