IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Tue, 07 September 2004 13:29 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 JAA20972; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:29:15 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4fov-0006PL-FL; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:15:37 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C4flz-0005ak-Ef for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:12:35 -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 JAA19684 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:12:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from hoemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.226.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C4fpR-0003ml-2i for dhcwg@ietf.org; Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:16:09 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by hoemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i87DCGNh021602; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 08:12:23 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i87DCD102925; Tue, 7 Sep 2004 09:12:13 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, "JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)
Date: Tue, 07 Sep 2004 09:12:13 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <y7veklyqkbx.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <20040906084327.GA8343@sverresborg.uninett.no> <20040907090029.GB17934@sverresborg.uninett.no>
In-Reply-To: <20040907090029.GB17934@sverresborg.uninett.no>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200409070912.13081.jdq@lucent.com>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7d33c50f3756db14428398e2bdedd581
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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:
> When a client receives a Reply to an Information-Request that
> contains configuration information (i.e., does not contain a
> Status Code option), it should install that new configuration
> information after removing any previously received configuration
> information.  Note that it should also remove information that
> is missing from the new information set, e.g. an option might be
> left out or contain only a subset of what it did previously.
> There may be reasons not to always do this.  One example might
> be when client has indication that it has moved to a new link.
> How a client copes with movement is outside the scope of this
> document.

Should "does not contain a Status Code option" be replaced with "does not 
contain a negative Status Code option"?  A status code of 0 should be 
acceptable.

Otherwise, this text looks good.

Joe.


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

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email