IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Tue, 31 August 2004 17:06 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 NAA05441; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 13:06:32 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2Bo8-0007NQ-Nx; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:48:32 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2Ba0-0001Kh-A7 for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:33:56 -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 MAA01556 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:33:53 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com ([204.152.186.142]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2Bc0-0007vF-5m for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 12:36:01 -0400
Received: from [10.0.2.8] (neubayern.net [66.93.162.100]) by toccata.fugue.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 352F01B2273 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 11:32:17 -0500 (CDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619)
In-Reply-To: <20040831120208.GM2203@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <000e01c486b3$66af02b0$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com> <6493.1093586912@munnari.OZ.AU> <20040831120208.GM2203@sverresborg.uninett.no>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Message-Id: <8789608F-FB6B-11D8-8C0B-000D93C4B69A@fugue.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 09:33:46 -0700
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619)
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7a6398bf8aaeabc7a7bb696b6b0a2aad
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

On Aug 31, 2004, at 5:02 AM, Stig Venaas wrote:
> I don't know what people think, I have no strong feelings myself, but
> we could relax things a bit perhaps. But there is some added complexity
> and it isn't essential. It could also be extended later if necessary.
>
> We could tweak the spec to allow what you say, if there's agreement on
> that. But most of all, I want to come to some conclusion really soon.

I think using the IRT option in a context where there is a lifetime 
already doesn't make sense, and should not be allowed.   I don't mean 
the client should drop the packet if it gets both - just that the 
option has no meaning in the context of a stateful DHCP message.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email