IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt

Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com> Fri, 20 August 2004 15:38 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 LAA21897; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:38:08 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ByB2z-0008TY-F7; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:11:17 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1ByAov-0003lZ-AB for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:56:45 -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 KAA18319 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:56:37 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ihemail1.lucent.com ([192.11.222.161]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1ByAvT-0000b7-S9 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 11:03:33 -0400
Received: from homail.ho.lucent.com (h135-17-192-10.lucent.com [135.17.192.10]) by ihemail1.lucent.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id i7KEtVAS013197; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 09:55:31 -0500 (CDT)
Received: from kraken.mh.lucent.com by homail.ho.lucent.com (8.11.7+Sun/EMS-1.5 sol2) id i7KEtUo15967; Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:30 -0400 (EDT)
From: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, 'Stig Venaas' <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>, "'JINMEI Tatuya / ?$B?@L@C#:H'" <jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt
Date: Fri, 20 Aug 2004 10:55:04 -0400
User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4
References: <000e01c486b3$66af02b0$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <000e01c486b3$66af02b0$6401a8c0@amer.cisco.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200408201053.49786.jdq@lucent.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 7655788c23eb79e336f5f8ba8bce7906
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

Bernie Volz wrote:
> I'm OK to restricting the Lifetime Option to replies to
> Information-Request's.
>
> The client MUST ignore a Lifetime Option that is in any message other than
> a REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST. A client MUST NOT include the Lifetime
> Option number in an ORO except when sending an INFORMATION-REQUEST message.
>
> The server MUST NOT include the Lifetime Option in any message other than a
> REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST.

This sounds good to me.

Also, did we reach consensus on a default value?  This seems like the 
appropriate place to mention it:

If a client requests a Lifetime Option and does not receive one in the reply, 
it should use the default value of n hours.

Or something to that effect...

Joe.


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

v2.29.0 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status