[dhcwg] Re: one more comment about the lifetime option

Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no> Tue, 03 August 2004 17:47 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 NAA26108; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:47:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs2zI-0008T3-S0; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:22:08 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs2sr-00072W-By for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:15:29 -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 NAA22970 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 13:15:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no ([158.38.60.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bs2vw-00059X-D2 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 13:18:42 -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 i73HEmUO002014; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:14:48 +0200
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by sverresborg.uninett.no (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i73HElX6027873; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:14:47 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: sverresborg.uninett.no: venaas set sender to Stig.Venaas@uninett.no using -f
Date: Tue, 3 Aug 2004 19:14:47 +0200
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
To: "JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Message-ID: <20040803171447.GA27805@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <y7vacxc5f3r.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <y7vacxc5f3r.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9182cfff02fae4f1b6e9349e01d62f32
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
Subject: [dhcwg] Re: one more comment about the lifetime option
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 Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:03:04AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> I forgot to mention this one:
> 
> Is it possible to specify different lifetimes for different instances
> of stateless information?  For example, people may want to specify
> different lifetimes for recursive DNS server addresses and for SIP
> server addresses.

We should keep this simple. If e.g. recursive server data needs to be
updated more frequently than SIP data, I would simply say that lifetime
should be the shortest. When you contact server to update DNS data, you
can at the same time update other data like SIP server address.

Note that the draft says:

   If client has received a lifetime with this option, and contacts
   server to receive new or update any existing data prior to its
   expiration, it SHOULD also update data covered by this option.  If no
   new lifetime is received, it MUST behave as if no value was ever
   provided.

In line with that SHOULD, there's no good reason to have multiple
lifetimes.

Stig

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