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

[Joe Quanaim <[e-mail]>]

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
[e-mail]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg