RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02

"Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 01 September 2004 01:39 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 VAA22046; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:39:20 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2Jyn-0007dv-NN; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:32:05 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C2JuI-0006mC-ER for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:27:26 -0400
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 VAA21413 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:27:25 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from rtp-iport-2.cisco.com ([64.102.122.149]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C2JwN-00056n-4o for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:29:36 -0400
Received: from rtp-core-1.cisco.com (64.102.124.12) by rtp-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 31 Aug 2004 21:26:53 -0400
X-BrightmailFiltered: true
Received: from flask.cisco.com (IDENT:mirapoint@flask.cisco.com [161.44.122.62]) by rtp-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id i811QpUu020159; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:51 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from volzw2k (che-vpn-cluster-2-207.cisco.com [10.86.242.207]) by flask.cisco.com (MOS 3.4.6-GR) with ESMTP id ALF64703; Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:49 -0400 (EDT)
From: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
To: 'Stig Venaas' <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, 'Joe Quanaim' <jdq@lucent.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02
Date: Tue, 31 Aug 2004 21:26:50 -0400
Organization: Cisco
Message-ID: <000001c48fc2$c1a09310$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.5709
In-Reply-To: <20040831121401.GN2203@sverresborg.uninett.no>
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4939.300
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 41c17b4b16d1eedaa8395c26e9a251c4
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Stig:

I agree with Ted (in response to your message) that the server SHOULD warn
if the time is below the minimum.

I don't agree with you that the client should just ignore the option if the
value is below the minimum - it should use the minimum.

I'd follow the convention used in RFC 3315 to declare 0xffffffff as
infinity. 0 isn't special - though as it is below the minimum, the minimum
would be used.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org] 
> On Behalf Of Stig Venaas
> Sent: Tuesday, August 31, 2004 8:14 AM
> To: Joe Quanaim
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Attempt at text for draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-02
> 
> 
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 08:54:09AM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote:
> > 
> > Stig Venaas wrote:
> > > |  A client MUST also use the default refresh time 
> IRT_DEFAULT if it  
> > > | receives the option with value less than 600.
> > >
> > > Do you agree with a minimum like this? It should make it 
> harder to 
> > > do bad things, and I don't see a use for <10 minutes. If 
> <600, would 
> > > you rather use 600 than IRT_DEFAULT?
> > 
> > I think a minimum is a good idea, but it probably should 
> not be reset 
> > to 24
> > hours.  That's probably not what an admin intended by 
> setting the value that 
> > low.
> 
> I agree sort of. For the protocol, I like the idea of totally 
> ignoring option with invalid value though, which means using 
> the default. The server implementation should perhaps give 
> the administrator a warning, or send 600 rather than the 
> configured value.
> 
> We could also do what you suggest though. Other opinions?
> 
> > Also, are 0 or 0xffffffff a special case like elsewhere in 
> dhcpv6?  I 
> > am not
> > sure it's necessary; I am just bringing up the point.
> 
> I think it infinity could potentially be useful, but 
> 0xffffffff is in practice infinity anyway.
> 
> If we leave it out now, we can still add it later if we want.
> 
> Stig
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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