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

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