|
On Feb 17, 2012, at 5:47 PM, Joe Touch wrote:
Thanks. In this case, it's important to suggest why others should not add conventional DHCP query support to the TCP port. The idea of doing DHCP stateful autoconfiguration over TCP is nonsensical: DHCP clients start out with no IP address, so it is not possible for them to do TCP.
The reason for sharing option codes is to avoid confusion: since existing DHCPLEASEQUERY option codes come out of the same namespace as DHCP options, if we were to propose that options in this documentation come out of a different namespace, we would have
to declare that new namespace, which would have some options and option codes in common with the existing namespace. This doesn't add value.
Historically, we have never said that when an option code is added, that updates RFC2131 (really, it would make more sense to say it updated RFC2132 if we were to go there, since RFC2132 is the document that describes DHCP options). So it would be surprising
and unconventional if this document were said to update either RFC2131 or RFC2132 simply because it defined one or more new option codes.
|
_______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf