[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00

To: Bud Millwood <budm at weird-solutions.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon at nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 10:39:19 -0700
Cc: "dhcwg at ietf.org" <dhcwg at ietf.org>
Delivered-to: dhcwg at core3.amsl.com
In-reply-to: <200903171740.19574.budm at weird-solutions.com>
List-archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <5033E739-18FA-4328-A276-E6D159052AAA at cisco.com> <200903171740.19574.budm at weird-solutions.com>

Bud, when the wglc came out for the dhcpv4 and dhcpv6 versions of thisdraft, you responded positively to the dhcpv4 version, but not thedhcpv6 version. Was that a deliberate or accidental omission?

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
  - From: Bud Millwood

References:
- [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
  - From: Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
  - From: Bud Millwood

Prev by Date: Re: [dhcwg] Add WG item: draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00
Next by Date: [dhcwg] Query on RFC 3315 - Section 20
Previous by thread: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
Next by thread: Re: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread