Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02

On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 08:54:09AM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote:
> 
> Stig Venaas wrote:
> > |  A client MUST also use the default refresh time IRT_DEFAULT if it
> > |  receives the option with value less than 600.
> >
> > Do you agree with a minimum like this? It should make it harder to
> > do bad things, and I don't see a use for <10 minutes. If <600,
> > would you rather use 600 than IRT_DEFAULT?
> 
> I think a minimum is a good idea, but it probably should not be reset to 24 
> hours.  That's probably not what an admin intended by setting the value that 
> low.

I agree sort of. For the protocol, I like the idea of totally ignoring
option with invalid value though, which means using the default. The
server implementation should perhaps give the administrator a warning,
or send 600 rather than the configured value.

We could also do what you suggest though. Other opinions?

> Also, are 0 or 0xffffffff a special case like elsewhere in dhcpv6?  I am not 
> sure it's necessary; I am just bringing up the point.

I think it infinity could potentially be useful, but 0xffffffff is in
practice infinity anyway.

If we leave it out now, we can still add it later if we want.

Stig

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