Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header
Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Tue, 28 August 2001 02:30 UTC
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA08212; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:30:43 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17097; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:29:46 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA17072 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:29:44 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.131.24]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07816 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:28:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn2-39.cisco.com [10.82.240.39]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id WAA14741; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:29:08 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20010827222005.038fa050@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:29:05 -0400
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <200108280217.f7S2HaT00474@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
References: <Message from Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> <4.3.2.7.2.20010827205720.03901be0@funnel.cisco.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Ted - I specifically titled this new option "Elapsed Time" (see the original text I sent out) to be more descriptive (rather than 'secs' or 'milliseconds') and to allow for other units in the expression of the data value. I'm not asking for proof of the requirement for milliseconds or 32 bits. We have a difference of opinion, and I'd like to find out if there's any operational experience that would give us something more than opinion to base a decision on. If nobody speaks up to say that the 'secs' field in DHCPv4 has actually been used in practice, perhaps we don't need to define an "Elapsed Time" option at all. More comments in line... - Ralph At 10:17 PM 8/27/2001 -0400, Ted Lemon wrote: >> Are there specific examples of when millisecond granularity is needed? > >I have definitely found that 1s granularity is too coarse for DHCPv4, >at least in the ISC DHCP server, and I have been meaning to make it >more fine-grained, but have not yet done so. Are you referring to the granularity of the 'secs' field? How would you make it more fine-grained if the units for the fields are defined as "seconds" in the spec? >I think it violates the principle of least surprise to call an option >milliseconds when it's not - if it's centiseconds, call it that. WRT >granularity, if we are specifying millisecond granularity, people are >likely to do their math in millisecond granularity, and I think it's >confusing to specify a variety of different granularities. > >I will not respond to any further questions about this. I think I've >made my reasoning clear. I can't prove that we need 32 bits. I think >we do. I am not without experience in these matters, so I think that >my gut feeling on this is worth something, but I can't prove it, and >it's pointless for you to ask me to try. Do what you will. > > _MelloN_ _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP mes… Ralph Droms
- RE: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Bernie Volz (EUD)
- [dhcwg] RE: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP mes… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ted Lemon
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ralph Droms
- Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP… Ted Lemon
- [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-addr… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Changes to remove "client-link-local-… Ted Lemon
- Re: Re[2]: [dhcwg] Lease database storage in DHCP… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] Assigning DHCPv6 option codes Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: randomization delay before… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: randomization delay before… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: movement detection and Con… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: use of anycast Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] dhcpv6-24: vendor-specific issues Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] status of draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] status of draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet… Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter Thomas Narten
- RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter Ralph Droms
- Re: [dhcwg] Agenda items for IETF-59, Seoul Naiming Shen
- Re: [dhcwg] *DRAFT* minutes from WG meeting in Se… Naiming Shen
- Re: [dhcwg] dhc wg last call on "DHCP Relay Agent… Thomas Narten