IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Tue, 28 August 2001 02:19 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07603; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:19:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA16785; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:18:02 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id WAA16765 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:18:01 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id WAA07551 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:16:39 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (user-2inic6l.dialup.mindspring.com [165.121.48.213]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7S2C7f10390; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 19:12:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by grosse.bisbee.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id f7S2HaT00474; Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:17:36 -0400 (EDT)
Message-Id: <200108280217.f7S2HaT00474@grosse.bisbee.fugue.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [Dhcwg] Re: Change to 'seconds' field in DHCP message header
In-Reply-To: Message from Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> of "Mon, 27 Aug 2001 21:03:24 EDT." <4.3.2.7.2.20010827205720.03901be0@funnel.cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2001 22:17:36 -0400
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

> Are there specific examples of when millisecond granularity is needed?

I have definitely found that 1s granularity is too coarse for DHCPv4,
at least in the ISC DHCP server, and I have been meaning to make it
more fine-grained, but have not yet done so.

I think it violates the principle of least surprise to call an option
milliseconds when it's not - if it's centiseconds, call it that.   WRT
granularity, if we are specifying millisecond granularity, people are
likely to do their math in millisecond granularity, and I think it's
confusing to specify a variety of different granularities.

I will not respond to any further questions about this.  I think I've
made my reasoning clear.  I can't prove that we need 32 bits.  I think
we do.  I am not without experience in these matters, so I think that
my gut feeling on this is worth something, but I can't prove it, and
it's pointless for you to ask me to try.  Do what you will.

			       _MelloN_

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

v2.27.8 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status