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

On Fri, Sep 03, 2004 at 03:35:10PM +0900, JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H wrote:
> >>>>> 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.

Yes, I don't mind adding some wording to the fact. It's against the
whole idea to use it as a sub-option.

I must say though that I'm a little bit surprised this came up. I'm
not that into the world of DHCP, but I don't recall seeing specs for
other options saying this, and I had thought that they should only
be used as sub-options if specified as such. Or is the idea that in
general, any option could be used as a sub-option?

I think though that the IRT (lifetime) option might appear to make
sense as a sub-option, while many other options pretty obviously
don't make sense. So I'm happy to add the wording, just to avoid
possible misuse.

Stig

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