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

Stig Venaas <> Tue, 03 August 2004 15:36 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15977; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:36:40 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs1GT-00081b-CL; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:31:45 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1Bs1Dl-0007tI-7p for; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:28:57 -0400
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA15636 for <>; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 11:28:55 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1Bs1Gq-00037c-Az for; Tue, 03 Aug 2004 11:32:09 -0400
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:700:e000:0:204:75ff:fee4:423b]) by (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i73FSGUO013246; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:28:17 +0200
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i73FSFl2026541; Tue, 3 Aug 2004 17:28:15 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: venaas set sender to using -f
Date: Tue, 03 Aug 2004 17:28:15 +0200
From: Stig Venaas <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

On Mon, Aug 02, 2004 at 10:43:07PM -0700, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I think that we should specify what a client should do when it isn't 
> given a lifetime option, rather than leaving it to the implementor.   I 
> would pick a number - say an hour - and recommend that as a default 
> value when no lifetime has been given.   I would require that this be 
> configurable on the client.   We should make sure that there isn't some 
> corner case where a network administrator that wants a really long 
> lifetime doesn't get hosed by the default value, but I don't think it's 
> okay to just leave it unstated.

First, if the option is implemented by both client and server, I would
expect it to always be used.

One hour sounds rather short to me, normally I would expect several days
between each change. Question is then how bad it is if there is a change
and it takes some time before the client learns of it. But why wouldn't
you use this option if you worry about that. I would expect most servers
to support this option...

I think I would choose 6 hours or something as default, but that's just
my personal feeling.


dhcwg mailing list