RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05

"Steve Gonczi" <> Wed, 14 July 2004 04:03 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id AAA09814; Wed, 14 Jul 2004 00:03:49 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkaHw-00055W-Gg; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 23:18:32 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkWzz-0007YB-Bs for; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:47:47 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id TAA09922 for <>; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:47:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BkWzv-0000tL-H6 for; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:47:43 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BkWuN-0007DB-00 for; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:42:01 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BkWnq-0005U5-00 for; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:35:14 -0400
Received: from STEVEPC ([]) by (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i6DNA1AZ023293; Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:10:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Gonczi <>
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
Date: Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:34:44 -0400
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
In-Reply-To: <>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_50_60, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0672991952=="

Samsung Enterprise Portal mySingleHi Daniel,

I have to admit I am not entirely clear on what you meant,
although I suspect you disagree with my suggestion.

Let me try to make my case:

For the cost of sending out one extra message by the Rapid Commit
client (which BTW does not cause any significant delay)
you could eliminate the entire 3.2 section from your protocol.

To recap:

1)  The "no multiple servers" restriction
2)  or "must have enough addresses" restriction
3)  or "use short lease times" restriction

Why would you not want to do this?

  -----Original Message-----
  From: PARK SOO HONG []
  Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 5:54 PM
  To: Steve Gonczi;
  Cc: Bernie Volz;
  Subject: Re: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on

  Hi Steve, thanks your comments and see my comment inline

  >When the Rapid commit client decides to accept an address
  >sent via a Rapid Commit ack, it should send out a DHCPREQUEST
  >(perhaps with the rapid commit option),
  >similar to the classic DHC protocol.

  I'd keep the original sentence since to sync the operation of DHCPv6,

  also make sure this option is for *RAPID COMMIT*.


  Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)

  Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics

dhcwg mailing list