Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)

[JINMEI Tatuya / 神明達哉 <[e-mail]>]

>>>>> On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 10:34:50 +0200, 
>>>>> Stig Venaas <[e-mail]> said:

> So how about something like this:

> When a client receives a Reply to an Information-Request that
> contains configuration information (i.e., does not contain a
> Status Code option), it SHOULD install that new configuration
> information after removing any previously received configuration
> information.  There may be reasons not to always do this.  One
> example might be when client has indication that it has moved to
> a new link.  How a client copes with movement is outside the scope
> of this document.

> I'm not not sure if it should be "SHOULD" or "should" there. At
> least I don't see this as part of the protocol. In my opinion
> the idea is just to give a general recommendation or some guidance
> to implementors.

The proposed text basically looks fine.  But I'd be a bit more
specific that the above description means if the new configuration
information does not have any update on a particular instance of the
old information (e.g., DNS server list) the client will simply remove
the old information.

As for "SHOULD" vs "should", I don't have a strong opinion.  If you
prefer "should", please just go for it.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					[e-mail]

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg