IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> Mon, 23 August 2004 08:24 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 EAA20326; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 04:24:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bz9pq-0003L6-Hr; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 04:05:46 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bz9cq-0001hh-UV for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:52:21 -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 DAA18771 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:52:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp ([202.249.10.124]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bz9d1-0006wr-Jn for dhcwg@ietf.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 03:52:32 -0400
Received: from ocean.jinmei.org (unknown [2001:200:0:8002:d496:d9ca:8037:c688]) by shuttle.wide.toshiba.co.jp (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9A71A1525D; Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:52:11 +0900 (JST)
Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2004 16:52:10 +0900
Message-ID: <y7voel2qok5.wl@ocean.jinmei.org>
From: JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
In-Reply-To: <000e01c486b3$66af02b0$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
References: <20040820114728.GC14315@sverresborg.uninett.no> <000e01c486b3$66af02b0$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
User-Agent: Wanderlust/2.10.1 (Watching The Wheels) Emacs/21.3 Mule/5.0 (SAKAKI)
Organization: Research & Development Center, Toshiba Corp., Kawasaki, Japan.
MIME-Version: 1.0 (generated by SEMI 1.14.5 - "Awara-Onsen")
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 9466e0365fc95844abaf7c3f15a05c7d
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk, 'Stig Venaas' <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, 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, 20 Aug 2004 08:44:14 -0400, 
>>>>> "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> said:

> I'm OK to restricting the Lifetime Option to replies to
> Information-Request's.

> The client MUST ignore a Lifetime Option that is in any message other than a
> REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST. A client MUST NOT include the Lifetime
> Option number in an ORO except when sending an INFORMATION-REQUEST message.

> The server MUST NOT include the Lifetime Option in any message other than a
> REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST.

I'm happy with this (of course).

Alternatively, if someone feels it is too restrictive, I guess we
could also say the use of the lifetime option in
solicit/advertise/... exchanges is beyond the scope of the document.

This way we can implicitly tell implementors that they can only
concentrate on the usage for information-requests while leaving a
future possibility of extension.

(just a thought, not intending to introduce further confusion...)

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email