IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Lifetime draft: refresh time should never be more thanIRT_DEFAULT

Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no> Wed, 17 November 2004 07:54 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 CAA23596; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:54:48 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUKcO-0003aX-6x; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:52:44 -0500
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CUKYI-0002p5-JL for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:48:31 -0500
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 CAA23064 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:48:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no ([158.38.60.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CUKae-0001LY-Ke for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 02:50:57 -0500
Received: from sverresborg.uninett.no (sverresborg.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:e000:0:204:75ff:fee4:423b]) by tyholt.uninett.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id iAH7mQ3U013939; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:48:26 +0100
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by sverresborg.uninett.no (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id iAH7mPuh030356; Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:48:25 +0100
X-Authentication-Warning: sverresborg.uninett.no: venaas set sender to Stig.Venaas@uninett.no using -f
Date: Wed, 17 Nov 2004 08:48:25 +0100
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Lifetime draft: refresh time should never be more thanIRT_DEFAULT
Message-ID: <20041117074825.GA30277@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <002a01c4c6ac$654323f0$be878182@amer.cisco.com> <D0FDE6C2-32A2-11D9-AA52-000A95D6A618@nominum.com> <20041116132415.GF26517@sverresborg.uninett.no> <200411161050.55774.jdq@lucent.com> <B30EA72A-3839-11D9-8CDB-000A95D6A618@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <B30EA72A-3839-11D9-8CDB-000A95D6A618@nominum.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 856eb5f76e7a34990d1d457d8e8e5b7f
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

On Tue, Nov 16, 2004 at 05:40:45PM -0800, Ted Lemon wrote:
[...]
> I think that it should be sufficient to say that clients SHOULD 
> restrict the lifetime to a day, and explain why, and let the 
> implementor decide how to handle it.   Or maybe just say "clients MAY 
> limit the lifetime", not specify any particular limit, and explain the 
> tradeoffs.

This sounds good to me. That text should also note the INFINITY value.

I don't think this issue should stop us from going to WGLC then. After-
wards I'll propose new text to resolve this, Jinmei's list of issues
and of course other issues raised in the LC.

Or do you want me to propose something now?

Stig


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

v2.30.2 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status