Re: [dhcwg] Re: one more comment about the lifetime option

I agree with Stig - we've discussed this issue before and come to the 
conclusion that there is little extra overhead in delivering information 
that has not changed, so there should be a single lifetime - chosen to be 
the shortest lifetome of any of the client's parameters.

- Ralph

At 07:14 PM 8/3/2004 +0200, Stig Venaas wrote:
>On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 02:03:04AM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> > I forgot to mention this one:
> >
> > Is it possible to specify different lifetimes for different instances
> > of stateless information?  For example, people may want to specify
> > different lifetimes for recursive DNS server addresses and for SIP
> > server addresses.
>
>We should keep this simple. If e.g. recursive server data needs to be
>updated more frequently than SIP data, I would simply say that lifetime
>should be the shortest. When you contact server to update DNS data, you
>can at the same time update other data like SIP server address.
>
>Note that the draft says:
>
>    If client has received a lifetime with this option, and contacts
>    server to receive new or update any existing data prior to its
>    expiration, it SHOULD also update data covered by this option.  If no
>    new lifetime is received, it MUST behave as if no value was ever
>    provided.
>
>In line with that SHOULD, there's no good reason to have multiple
>lifetimes.
>
>Stig
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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