RE: [dhcwg] Re: one more comment about the lifetime option

> An authentication 
> option can be used with Information-request and can have sub-options.

That's news to me and I don't see where this is possible based on RFC 3315.

But in any case, its no big deal to specify that the option is restricted to
the message level.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: JINMEI Tatuya / _¾BÆ [mailto:jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp] 
> Sent: Thursday, September 02, 2004 5:21 AM
> To: Bernie Volz
> Cc: 'Ted Lemon'; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Re: one more comment about the lifetime option
> 
> 
> (forgot to reply to this...)
> 
> I've changed the order of the citation below.
> 
> >>>>> On Tue, 24 Aug 2004 20:55:14 -0400,
> >>>>> "Bernie Volz" <volz@cisco.com> said:
> 
> >> > We should also restrict the position where the lifetime 
> option can
> >> > appear: it should only be able to appear at the "top level"
> >> of option
> >> > hierarchy.
> >> 
> >> I think this is a good idea.
> 
> > If it is restricted to a REPLY to an INFORMATION-REQUEST, 
> there is no 
> > need for this explicit statement as that's all that is currently 
> > possible - there are no IA_NA, IA_TA, or IA_PD options for these 
> > messages.
> 
> I don't think this is really the case.  An authentication 
> option can be used with Information-request and can have sub-options.
> 
> 					JINMEI, Tatuya
> 					Communication Platform Lab.
> 					Corporate R&D Center, 
> Toshiba Corp.
> 					jinmei@isl.rdc.toshiba.co.jp
> 

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