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

On Fri, Aug 20, 2004 at 08:44:14AM -0400, Bernie Volz wrote:
> I'm OK to restricting the Lifetime Option to replies to
> Information-Request's.
> 
> The client MUST ignore a Lifetime Option that is in any message other than a
> REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST. A client MUST NOT include the Lifetime
> Option number in an ORO except when sending an INFORMATION-REQUEST message.
> 
> The server MUST NOT include the Lifetime Option in any message other than a
> REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST.

Right, sounds good. Thanks for the text.

This brings up another thing I want to discuss.

Is it actually useful for the client to include it in ORO at all?
Should the server really care?

I can think of basically three options. I'll be a bit vague on the
MAY/SHOULD/MUSTs for now.

1. Client may include it. If server sees option it should include
   it in reply. If server does not see it, it may include it anyway.

2. Client always includes it, and server only includes it in reply if
   client included it in request.

3. Client never includes it, and server always or never includes it
   depending on configuration.

It would be nice to come to agreement on which alternative is best
before trying to formalize things.

Personally I think alternative 3 makes sense.

That is, if a server implements the option and is configured with some
lifetime by the administrator, then it should always include it.

If it is not configured by the administrator, then it should not include
it, so that clients will just use the default.

Or do you see a problem with server including the option when client
doesn't implement it?

Stig

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