RE: [dhcwg] Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and DDNS-DHCP Related RFCs
[ Moderators note: Post was moderated, either because it was posted by
a non-subscriber, or because it was over 20K.
With the massive amount of spam, it is easy to miss and therefore
delete relevant posts by non-subscribers.
Please fix your subscription addresses. ]
No, this would just mean that the client identity would be stored in raw
octet form instead of "encrypting" the data. It would have no impact on
anything else that I can see.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Harald Tveit Alvestrand [mailto:email@example.com]=20
> Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 5:36 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz); Ted Lemon; [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email]
> Cc: [email]email@example.com[/email]; Olaf Kolkman; Stig Venaas;=20
> [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email]; Ralph Droms (rdroms)
> Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Open issues in DHCP FQDN, DHCID and=20
> DDNS-DHCP Related RFCs
> --On tirsdag, februar 07, 2006 17:28:54 -0500 "Bernie Volz (volz)"=20
> <email@example.com> wrote:
> > Well, that certainly would be an easy solution (in terms of=20[/color]
> changes to[color=green]
> > the draft and also the conflict resolution draft). But, do=20[/color]
> how practical[color=green]
> > is this? How likely is the IESG to accept this?[/color]
> (speaking as DHCP-head, not security-head)
> would removing the hash entirely increase the probability of=20
> confusion over=20
> "who does what"?
> I thought it had a differentiation function too....
to unsubscribe send a message to [email]firstname.lastname@example.org[/email] with
the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.