Re: Re: [dhcwg] WG Last Call for DHCP draft

On Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Jan 26, 2005, at 4:54 PM, Vivek Kashyap wrote:
> > If it is strongly felt that we need to discourage 1542 then I could 
> > refer to
> > both 2131 and 1542 rather than just 1542. Even better would be to 
> > obsolete
> > 1542 by writing an updated draft.
> That's 2132.   2132 obsoleted 1542.

No it does not obsolete it..the RFC header states that it obsoletes 1533. 
there is no mention of 1542.

> 
> >> Regarding the text about client identifiers, I am extremely
> >> uncomfortable with this.   Obviously it's not just my decision, but
> >> right now you haven't given me any reason to think this is a good 
> >> idea,
> >> and I've given you some pretty definite reasons why I _don't_ want it.
> >
> > Did you look at -08.txt?
> Yes, you emailed it to me.
> 
> > The draft is not mandating any particular use and mentions other 
> > values. I'll
> > see if I can make it even clearer that other values are certainly 
> > possible.
> 
> The problem is that any time you suggest a way for someone to do 
> something, it's likely to be taken as a mandate whether you say MUST or 
> not.   So for safety, I prefer to make it extremely clear whenever 
> possible that a certain suggested behavior is not mandated by stating 
> what other behaviors are allowed, preferably by referring to the RFCs 
> that define them, and also to state that the implementation must not 
> treat the suggested behavior as mandatory in the sense of treating 
> input that does not follow the suggested behavior as erroneous.   
> Unfortunately I have seen implementors do precisely this; thus my 
> paranoia about it.   :'}

I'll add some text that should hopefully close this.

Vivek

> 
> 
>