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

>>>>> On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 08:46:24 -0400, 
>>>>> "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> said:

>> An authentication 
>> option can be used with Information-request and can have sub-options.

> That's news to me and I don't see where this is possible based on RFC 3315.

Ah, okay, I was wrong.  The authentication option is a variable-length
option but does not take a sub-option according to RFC3315.

> But in any case, its no big deal to specify that the option is restricted to
> the message level.

That's correct.  But at the same time, I believe we all agree that
there is no reason to allow the lifetime (or refresh timer) option
appearing as a sub-option.

We can prefer the former logic for the reason not to specify this
point in the document.  We can also prefer the latter logic for the
reason to specify this point in the document.  I believe this is a
matter of taste, and I myself can live with either approach.  So, I'd
leave the decision to the document author.

					JINMEI, Tatuya
					Communication Platform Lab.
					Corporate R&D Center, Toshiba Corp.
					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp

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