IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt

Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no> Fri, 20 August 2004 15:05 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 LAA19173; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:05:45 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ByAde-00013k-Ef; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:45:06 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ByA8Y-0001DF-Dh for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:12:58 -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 KAA15105 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:12:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no ([158.38.60.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ByAF4-0008Bo-GI for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:19:45 -0400
Received: from sverresborg.uninett.no (sverresborg.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:e000:0:204:75ff:fee4:423b]) by tyholt.uninett.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i7KEB32M024323; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:11:03 +0200
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by sverresborg.uninett.no (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i7KEB29h015172; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:11:02 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: sverresborg.uninett.no: venaas set sender to Stig.Venaas@uninett.no using -f
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 16:11:02 +0200
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
Message-ID: <20040820141102.GE14315@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <20040820132451.GD14315@sverresborg.uninett.no> <001d01c486bd$13f1c850$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <001d01c486bd$13f1c850$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, jdq@lucent.com
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

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 09:53:31AM -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
> YES! The client MUST include this in the ORO if it is interested in the
> parameter. Ted discussed this on the mailing list a few weeks back - that
> options really must be in the ORO. And, I do agree with him that this is the
> best policy.
> 
> If I recall correctly, Ted stated that if a client "wants" an option, it
> MUST include it in the ORO.

I apologize for my ignorance, I don't know DHCP well enough. I found and
read Ted's mail now. I see how it simplifies server implementation.

I think I have enough input to propose new text for the draft now. I'll
post a proposal soon.

Thanks for your input and patience,

Stig

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email