Re: [dhcwg] max-unacked-bndupd

[Damien Neil <Damien.Neil at nominum.com>]

On Aug 17, 2006, at 10:02 AM, David W. Hankins wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 17, 2006 at 01:53:34AM -0700, Damien Neil wrote:
> > Since max-unacked-bndupd is defined in section 12.14, which does not
> > include the caveat from sections 7.1 and 7.2, I think that a literal
> > reading of the draft will conclude that this option applies to
> > messages and not transactions.  On the other hand, I think that this
>
> There's a simpler solution:  Section 6.3 should be removed.
>
> It's a rediculous idea; the benefits are negligable, and certainly
> don't outweigh the complexity imposed.

I don't think 6.3 is all that complicated, but I suspect that you're  
right about the benefits being negligible.  I don't think I'd shed  
any tears if it went away.

               - Damien

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg