[dhcwg] Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Lifetime Hints) - Respond by 8/24/2015

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Mon, 10 August 2015 15:30 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6EBE1B36E9 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:30:28 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UinZqTgmIF8H for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from alln-iport-5.cisco.com (alln-iport-5.cisco.com []) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2C6A41B36A9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 08:30:26 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9557; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1439220626; x=1440430226; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=SmZpBUArj/94YwH+Eb7J5aTveWQfR7rn3Niw/FUouOo=; b=PAmmuF5DDP9lfaQ1ijbdlHkJekGmpx1RlNMqKGmqp9GdRaQ695IixYMV DHSRhQQ8ArJUovrG8d2z2n/05h8cp9Cckvkmf7ObXtApVsQ2JFAUfUypy 6obrH/I634+LfKKy8aaKau8LWJWAmhDrDTDsQBWzNcU1EyTUT+L47pGBr I=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.15,646,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217";a="177230276"
Received: from rcdn-core-3.cisco.com ([]) by alln-iport-5.cisco.com with ESMTP; 10 Aug 2015 15:30:25 +0000
Received: from XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com (xch-aln-006.cisco.com []) by rcdn-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t7AFUPdA006117 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:30:25 GMT
Received: from xch-aln-006.cisco.com ( by XCH-ALN-006.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:30:24 -0500
Received: from xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ( by xch-aln-006.cisco.com ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1104.5 via Frontend Transport; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:30:24 -0500
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([]) by xhc-aln-x02.cisco.com ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0248.002; Mon, 10 Aug 2015 10:30:24 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Lifetime Hints) - Respond by 8/24/2015
Thread-Index: AdDTgYI8dn+EIwHDS5yfcLEO46G7ug==
Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:30:23 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CC2E8AA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CC2E8AAxmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/AR4eTpO0r4Wkm1I8ka4NeGAfb2Y>
Subject: [dhcwg] Follow-up from IETF-93 (Prague) - DHCPv6 bis Issues (Lifetime Hints) - Respond by 8/24/2015
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 10 Aug 2015 15:30:29 -0000


As a follow-up from the IETF-93 (Prague) DHC WG session and the DHCPv6 bis Issues (see https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/93/slides/slides-93-dhc-7.pdf):

For slide #4, Lifetime Hints (#148), we want to confirm the WG consensus to adopt the proposal to DROP lifetime hints stands:

Proposal: Drop lifetime hints; servers SHOULD/MUST ignore any supplied lifetimes (clients SHOULD NOT send - i.e. send 0)

Please respond if you do not agree with this proposal and please indicate why.

The rationale for this proposal is that clients often get the hint wrong (they will use what they previously got for a lifetime or perhaps even just the remaining lifetime - which can result in shorter and shorter lifetimes) which makes use of this information by the server problematic. If a client wants a shorter lieftime, it is always free to release it earlier.

-          Bernie (for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis coauthors)