Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Tue, 24 August 2004 15:07 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 LAA13123; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 11:07:41 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BzcQ3-0007AC-Cm; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:37:03 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BzcFt-0004dN-TS for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:26:33 -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 KAA09731 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:26:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail2.lucent.com ([192.11.222.163]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1BzcGK-0001VI-Sx for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:27:02 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by ihemail2.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7OEPkvV023190; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 09:25:46 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i7OEPjP08499; Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:25:45 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)
Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2004 10:25:11 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <y7vhdrl56ol.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <200408231342.39913.jdq@lucent.com> <20040824092209.GA5677@sverresborg.uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <20040824092209.GA5677@sverresborg.uninett.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408241025.11357.jdq@lucent.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ea4ac80f790299f943f0a53be7e1a21a
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
Reply-To: jdq@lucent.com
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 Venaas wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 23, 2004 at 01:42:39PM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote:
> [...]
>
> > It sounds like all that is needed is a new name for this option.
>
> So let's try to find a new name. I think "update time option" is
> one possibility. I don't like "update timer option" because this
> is only a value to use for the timer, not the timer itself.
>
> Another alternative is "refresh time option" perhaps?
>
> I discussed it with a colleague, and we came up with alternatives
> like "suggested refresh/update time option" or "refresh/update
> within option". Not so sure about the last one, it tries to make
> it clear that you might refresh/update before the specified time.
>
> I think we should keep the name fairly short. We should have a
> name that isn't misleading, but people will still have to read the
> draft to understand exactly what it is.

Another alternative might be "refresh delay".  This changes the nature of the 
name from "check back in n seconds" to "do not check again until at least n 
seconds".  It does not piggyback on the notion of expiration, which is well 
defined in the address management side of dhcp, but not on the stateless 
option side.

Joe.



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