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

Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no> Thu, 09 September 2004 12:25 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 IAA13149; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:25:48 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5NsQ-0000Ph-R3; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:18:10 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1C5Nmh-00074k-Fd for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:12:15 -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 IAA12351 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 08:12:14 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from tyholt.uninett.no ([158.38.60.10]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1C5NqV-0000rd-C4 for dhcwg@ietf.org; Thu, 09 Sep 2004 08:16:14 -0400
Received: from sverresborg.uninett.no (sverresborg.uninett.no [IPv6:2001:700:e000:0:204:75ff:fee4:423b]) by tyholt.uninett.no (8.12.10/8.12.10) with ESMTP id i89CBZOK010725; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:11:39 +0200
Received: (from venaas@localhost) by sverresborg.uninett.no (8.12.8/8.12.8/Submit) id i89CBY94027430; Thu, 9 Sep 2004 14:11:34 +0200
X-Authentication-Warning: sverresborg.uninett.no: venaas set sender to Stig.Venaas@uninett.no using -f
Date: Thu, 09 Sep 2004 14:11:34 +0200
From: Stig Venaas <Stig.Venaas@uninett.no>
To: Joe Quanaim <jdq@lucent.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] behavior on lifetime expiration (Re: comments on draft-ietf-dhc-lifetime-01.txt)
Message-ID: <20040909121134.GH26272@sverresborg.uninett.no>
References: <y7veklyqkbx.wl@ocean.jinmei.org> <20040906084327.GA8343@sverresborg.uninett.no> <20040907090029.GB17934@sverresborg.uninett.no> <200409070912.13081.jdq@lucent.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200409070912.13081.jdq@lucent.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 0bc60ec82efc80c84b8d02f4b0e4de22
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
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

On Tue, Sep 07, 2004 at 09:12:13AM -0400, Joe Quanaim wrote:
> 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.

Negative is a bit misleading perhaps since the values are not
negative, but I see what you mean. We could say non-zero or that
the code is not "success".  Or perhaps just remove the "i.e.".

Unfortunately I just submitted 02 version of the draft, and forgot
to consider this. This is easy to fix later though.

Stig

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