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

Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last Call: NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 to Proposed Standard

To: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last Call: NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 to Proposed Standard
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Date: Thu, 15 May 2003 00:58:47 -0500
Cc: iesg@ietf.org, iesg-secretary@ietf.org, dhcwg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: <20030514211803.0f865b7f.moore@cs.utk.edu>

I doubt that it's appropriate to bless this as standards-track.
Informational would be okay.

To be clear, this draft is about how to represent NIS+ server information in a DHCPv6 packet, in cases where the application wants to represent this information in this packet. It doesn't recommend that anybody use NIS+.

The nsswitch.conf issue should be handled in a separate draft, similar to RFC2937. I don't think this needs to be mentioned in this draft - RFC2937 is about how to choose between different name service classes, not about any one name service class.

There is no RFC documenting an NIS binding protocol that I've been able to find - do you have a reference for that?

References:
- Re: Last Call: NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 to Proposed Standard
  - From: Keith Moore <moore@cs.utk.edu>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-ietf-ccamp-lmp-08.txt
Next by Date: Re: Evaluation: draft-murchison-sieve-subaddress - Sieve -- Subaddress Extension to Proposed Standard
Previous by thread: Re: Last Call: NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 to Proposed Standard
Next by thread: RE: Last Call: NIS Configuration Options for DHCPv6 to Proposed Standard
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread