> -----Original Message-----
> From: James M. Polk [mailto:jmpolk@cisco.com]
> Sent: Thursday, 8 October 2009 5:51 PM
> To: Bernard Aboba; Thomson, Martin; geopriv@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [Geopriv] "DHC" options
>
> The WG isn't called the "DHCP WG", it's called the DHC WG. Way back
> in 2004 - when I was writing the original ID that became RFC 3825, I
> was asked to refer to anything DHC without the P by the DHC WG
> (within the original draft). I didn't question that, given they know
> more about their protocol than I do, and I suspect more than anyone
> within Geopriv does... but I could be wrong. I carried that
> philosophy forward in the dhcp-lbyr-uri-option ID.
>
> James
>
> At 12:37 AM 10/8/2009, Bernard Aboba wrote:
> >Good question. I went over all the usages of "DHC" in rfc3825bis
> >and "DHCP" appears more appropriate in all cases. I'll fix this in
> >the next revision.
> >
> > > Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2009 23:59:56 -0500
> > > From: Martin.Thomson@andrew.com
> > > To: geopriv@ietf.org
> > > Subject: [Geopriv] "DHC" options
> > >
> > > Why do rfc3825bis and dhcp-lbyr-uri-option both use the acronym
> > "DHC" (without the usual "P")?
> > >
> > > When I see "DHC Option" I wonder whether this option is a
> > protocol parameter or if it belongs to the DHC WG.
> > >
> > > --Martin
> > >
> > > p.s. Can we at least "expand on first use" here?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
