Re: [dhcwg] A new draft of draft-jiang-dhc-secure-dhcpv6 is submitted. Comments are welcome!

[Robert Elz <kre at munnari.OZ.AU>]

    Date:        Mon, 14 Jul 2008 08:56:09 -0400
    From:        "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz at cisco.com>
    Message-ID:  <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB21080C9F72 at xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>

  | And, what if there is another option that states it needs to be last?

Yes, that's a problem, there can be only one (non-exclusive0 option with
that requirement.   But "last" tends to only make sense for auth type
options, options whose value depends upon all the other data in the packet.

That's why my earlier message mentioned the possibility of multiple auth
options (which to me probably makes no sense, but ...)

  | If there is no technical reason, then drop the requirement. If it makes
  | it easier to implement, that is up to the implementation to decide to
  | do; not up to the standard to mandate it.

Again, I think it is to allow clients to simplify their code, which I
suspect many will do anyway, and that it can be done without any real
impact upon the server.

Also note I'm talking about the proposed CGA signature option, not the
existing AUTH option.

kre

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