Re: [dhcwg] Overconstraining

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Sat, 22 September 2001 03:55 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id XAA12911; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:55:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02869; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:22 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id XAA02839 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id XAA12839 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:58 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA02064; Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:19 -0400
Date: Fri, 21 Sep 2001 23:52:19 -0400 (EDT)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: "Guja, ArturX" <ArturX.Guja@intel.com>
Cc: "Dhcwg (E-mail)" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Overconstraining
In-Reply-To: <413FBB0BA5AED1119122000083234B1A0247B42E@alpha.igk.intel.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1010921235148.16329B-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

If it was a SHOULD would that be fine?  I don't think going back to
solicit in the spec is prudent though?


/jim


On Fri, 21 Sep 2001, Guja, ArturX wrote:

> Hello,
> 
> One thing I noticed while implementing draft 19.
> It says, that after failing to get a REPLY to a REQUEST,
> the client MUST abort configuration attempt. Isn't it a bit harsh
> on the poor soul :)))
> 
> After all, the server, whose ADVERTISE the client chose to answer,
> could have been shutdown or disconnected in the meantime.
> Shouldn't we allow the client to select another ADVERTISE and try again.
> I'd even risk allowing it to send a SOLICIT again, although I appreciate it
> could
> lead to perpetual flood of SOLICITS.
> 
> But If a client got more than one ADVERTISE, it COULD select another one
> and try again, possibly with a different server.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Artur G.
> (TUG student)
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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