RE: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments ondraft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 25 August 2004 01:57 UTC

Received: from megatron.ietf.org (megatron.ietf.org [132.151.6.71]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA03020; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:57:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BzmaG-0006D6-5V; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:28:16 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BzmAJ-0001so-2a for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:01:27 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id VAA28944 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:01:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from sj-iport-3-in.cisco.com ([171.71.176.72] helo=sj-iport-3.cisco.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BzmAv-00056B-1O for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:02:06 -0400
Received: from sj-core-2.cisco.com (171.71.177.254) by sj-iport-3.cisco.com with ESMTP; 24 Aug 2004 18:07:24 +0000
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by sj-core-2.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i7P10jox010599; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 18:00:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-1-156.cisco.com [10.86.240.156]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALB57036; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:00:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com>
To: <jdq@lucent.com>, "'Stig Venaas'" <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments ondraft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 21:00:45 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <001501c48a3e$f4246d90$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
In-Reply-To: <200408241025.11357.jdq@lucent.com>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 244a2fd369eaf00ce6820a760a3de2e8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I'd vote for "Refresh Time Option". I have no problem renaming this and I do
how we keep it simple - client should refresh its data when the time elapses
(note that this doesn't preclude the client from doing it earlier if it has
a good reason to do so).

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Joe Quanaim
> Sent: Tuesday, August 24, 2004 10:25 AM
> To: Stig Venaas
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org; tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: 
> comments ondraft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)
> 
> 
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:42:39PM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote: [...]
> >
> > > It sounds like all that is needed is a new name for this option.
> >
> > So let's try to find a new name. I think "update time 
> option" is one 
> > possibility. I don't like "update timer option" because 
> this is only a 
> > value to use for the timer, not the timer itself.
> >
> > Another alternative is "refresh time option" perhaps?
> >
> > I discussed it with a colleague, and we came up with 
> alternatives like 
> > "suggested refresh/update time option" or "refresh/update within 
> > option". Not so sure about the last one, it tries to make it clear 
> > that you might refresh/update before the specified time.
> >
> > I think we should keep the name fairly short. We should have a name 
> > that isn't misleading, but people will still have to read 
> the draft to 
> > understand exactly what it is.
> 
> Another alternative might be "refresh delay".  This changes 
> the nature of the 
> name from "check back in n seconds" to "do not check again 
> until at least n 
> seconds".  It does not piggyback on the notion of expiration, 
> which is well 
> defined in the address management side of dhcp, but not on 
> the stateless 
> option side.
> 
> Joe.
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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