IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Thu, 12 August 2004 13:27 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 JAA00815; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:27:29 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvFVx-0005db-Sw; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:21:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BvFMY-0003e3-Cv for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:11:22 -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 JAA29867 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:11:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BvFRV-0003Y8-BH for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:16:30 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7CDAfku012719; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 08:10:42 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i7CDAex06575; Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:10:40 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
Date: Thu, 12 Aug 2004 09:10:40 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <200408030929.31655.jdq@lucent.com> <200408120831.02326.jdq@lucent.com> <20040812124031.GH8177@sverresborg.uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <20040812124031.GH8177@sverresborg.uninett.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408120910.40182.jdq@lucent.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: d6b246023072368de71562c0ab503126
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jdq@lucent.com
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

Stig Venaas wrote:
> So, my suggested wording should be ok then I understand you correctly.
>
> > > How about saying this instead?:
> > >
> > >    The lifetime option is mainly intended for Stateless DHCP service as
> > >    specified in RFC 3736.  If the client receives IA Address options
> > >    containing lifetimes, the lifetime option should be ignored.  The
> > >    client should get updated configuration data from the server when it
> > >    renews the addresses.

I think that this wording is good.

It does not intermix the lifetime option among the various possible t1, t2, 
and address lifetimes which I think complicates. 

Thanks,
Joe.


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

v2.12.3 | Report a Bug | By Email