RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05

"Steve Gonczi" <> Thu, 15 July 2004 18:50 UTC

Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA13127; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:50:21 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlBA9-0008DP-HC; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:40:57 -0400
Received: from ([] by with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlB5o-0007Of-Mg for; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:36:28 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id OAA11818 for <>; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:36:26 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ([] helo=ietf-mx) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BlB5n-00058a-9g for; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:36:27 -0400
Received: from exim by ietf-mx with spam-scanned (Exim 4.12) id 1BlB4r-0004l5-00 for; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:35:30 -0400
Received: from ([]) by ietf-mx with esmtp (Exim 4.12) id 1BlB3p-00044p-00 for; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:34:25 -0400
Received: from STEVEPC ([]) by (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i6FI74AZ013340; Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:07:04 -0400 (EDT)
From: Steve Gonczi <>
To: Bernie Volz <>
Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-rapid-commit-opt-05
Date: Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:31:50 -0400
Message-ID: <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0)
Importance: Normal
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1409
In-Reply-To: <000501c46a23$a85fd970$>
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.60 (1.212-2003-09-23-exp) on
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,HTML_50_60, HTML_FONTCOLOR_BLUE,HTML_MESSAGE autolearn=no version=2.60
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1652102067=="

MessageHi Bernie,

My thinking was exactly as you outline it below. (the DHCPREQUEST
would have the rapid commit option...)

In any case, the point is moot, as I have come around to seeing
the beauty of using initial short leases.

I presume that the intent is to get the client IP-enabled as fast as
whilst the cost of the almost immediate renewal is not relevant.

I did post a note of supporting the advancement of this draft as-is.


  -----Original Message-----
  From: Bernie Volz []
  Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 12:25 AM
  To: 'Steve Gonczi'
  Subject: RE: RE: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on

  >Would not get retransmitted,  and I did not propose
  >an ACK/ NAK.

  Well, you didn't propose the ACK/NAK but the server will send that back in
response to DHCPREQUEST. Or, are you also suggesting that more is changed to
include the "Rapid Commit" in the DHCPREQUEST such that the server knows not
to send the ACK (or NAK)?

  Again, if you want to do this use short lease times for the Rapid Commit
and give the client a full length lease when it renews.

  - Bernie
dhcwg mailing list