I contend that including text in the document (as proposed) might instead by confusing.
Certain major DHCP implementations don't ever make a second request and so would not be able to benefit from the suggestion. I suspect also that if the second response is the unsupported version, the first option, supported or not, is likely to be destroyed.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 3:41 PM
> To: Thomson, Martin; Spencer Dawkins; bernard_aboba@hotmail.com
> Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #10: Server Version Support (was:
> Should not encourage use of "old" encoding)
>
> I call this one as we are in violent agreement...
>
> agreed?
>
> At 06:17 PM 7/1/2009, Thomson, Martin wrote:
> >Except for the fact that this is only possible in _different_ DHCP
> >responses. If it were in the same response, concatenation would be
> >applied and client behaviour would be undefined (and unpredictable).
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Spencer Dawkins [mailto:spencer@wonderhamster.org]
> > > Sent: Thursday, 2 July 2009 12:34 AM
> > > To: Thomson, Martin; bernard_aboba@hotmail.com; James M. Polk
> > > Cc: geopriv@ietf.org
> > > Subject: Re: [Geopriv] [geopriv] #10: Server Version Support (was:
> > > Should not encourage use of "old" encoding)
> > >
> > > > Do we want to have text saying something about the current
> behavior
> > > of
> > > >
> > > > "As a matter of practice within DHCP - a server sending
> one
> > > > version
> > > > of Option 123 towards a client followed by the other
> version
> > > (in
> > > > the
> > > > same response or a separate response) does not allow
> clients
> > > to
> > > > retain both versions in memory. Receiving two copies of
> the
> > > same
> > > > Option causes the client to replace the old information
> with
> > > the
> > > > new information of the same Option (123 in this case)."
> > > >
> > > > This is useful guidance.
> > > >
> > > > James
> > >
> > > I agree with providing guidance like this in an obviously non-
> normative
> > > way - it's not something everyone knows.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > >
> > > Spencer
> > >
> > >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> >This message is for the designated recipient only and may
> >contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
> >If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
> >immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
> >this email is prohibited.
> >----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------
> >[mf2]
> >_______________________________________________
> >Geopriv mailing list
> >Geopriv@ietf.org
> >https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message is for the designated recipient only and may
contain privileged, proprietary, or otherwise private information.
If you have received it in error, please notify the sender
immediately and delete the original. Any unauthorized use of
this email is prohibited.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[mf2]
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
