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

>>>>> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 02:03:03 +0900, 
>>>>> JINMEI Tatuya <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp> said:

>> 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.

> Okay, I'm fine with the "singe lifetime for all option parameters"
> approach.  In fact, I was just wondering without any particular
> preference.

> But I want the document to be more specific on this point because
> other readers might wonder the same point.

We should also restrict the position where the lifetime option can
appear: it should only be able to appear at the "top level" of option
hierarchy.  In other wise, it must not appear as a sub-option of
another option.

					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