-Marc-
On 10/1/10 3:40 PM, "James Polk" <jmpolk@cisco.com> wrote:
> I think the answer here is to change "MUST" to "can" in the first
> sentence, and just remove the second sentence of this paragraph (the
> one quoted below).
>
> I just talked to Marc about this and he's ok with it.
>
> James
>
> At 08:31 AM 8/27/2010, Marc Linsner wrote:
>> Yes, replace MUST with can.
>>
>> But now, as I read the rest of the paragraph I'm confused further.
>>
>> "That said, this Option SHOULD NOT be in a DISCOVER message, because
>> there is zero knowledge by the client of which Server will answer."
>>
>> What option? RAIO? This URI? Why? (the explanation doesn't make
>> sense to me)
>>
>> -Marc-
>>
>>
>> On 8/27/10 8:53 AM, "Richard L. Barnes"
>> <<rbarnes@bbn.htm>rbarnes@bbn.com> wrote:
>>
>> Makes sense to me to have this be consistent with rfc3825bis. I'm
>> assuming you mean this phrase:
>> "
>> The DHCP server is assumed to have determined the location from the
>> Circuit-ID Relay Agent Information Option (RAIO) defined (as SubOpt 1) in
>> [2].
>> "
>>
>> This seems to be saying "we're assuming it's done this way; if you
>> can make it work otherwise, fine." Would the corresponding change
>> to James's document then be to change "MUST" to "can"?
>>
>> --Richard
>>
>>
>>
>> On Aug 27, 2010, at 8:32 AM, Marc Linsner wrote:
>>
>> Why is this a MUST?
>>
>> "
>> 3. DHC Option Operation
>>
>> The [RFC3046] RAIO MUST be utilized to provide the appropriate
>> indication to the DHCP Server where this DISCOVER or REQUEST message
>> came from, in order to supply the correct response. That said, this
>> Option SHOULD NOT be in a DISCOVER message, because there is zero
>> knowledge by the client of which Server will answer.
>> "
>>
>> We (Martin, Bernard, and I) just had this conversation wrt 3825bis. I can
>> build a DHC server with a backend location determination mechanism that does
>> not require RAIO. I'm not suggesting this document describe an alternative
>> mechanism, I'm suggesting that RAIO be mentioned as one way to perform
>> location determination, not require it with a MUST.
>>
>>
>> -Marc-
>>
>>
>> On 8/23/10 6:24 AM, "Alissa Cooper" <<acooper@cdt.htm>acooper@cdt.org> wrote:
>>
>> This is a GEOPRIV Working Group Last Call for comments on
>> draft-ietf-geopriv-dhcp-lbyr-uri-option-08
>>
>> Please send your comments to the list by 6 September 2010. As always,
>> please remember to send a note in if you've read the document and have
>> no other comments other than "its ready to go" - we need those as much
>> as we need "I found a problem."
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> <Geopriv@ietf.htm>Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> <Geopriv@ietf.htm>Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Geopriv mailing list
>> Geopriv@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
