DHCP timezone

I just had an idea, and perhaps I'm adding to an already existing feature,
but it stuck me as natural for a dhcp server to notify host computers of the
local timezone, so one can have his host computer sync with any timeserver
and still have accurate local time when connecting through dhcp services
throughout the world.
Like I said please disregard this if it's an already existing feature (yeah
I didn't bother to check)

Cheers,
Pedro Borges

RE: DHCP timezone

Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request to change the
title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.

I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the potential
for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"

- Ralph

Re: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

I think it's fine to change the name.   The fact that it's referencing 
DHCPv6 in the title seems sufficient to eliminate confusion, and if 
anyone remains confused, they will realize they need RFC3315 when they 
read the document.

RE: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

Ralph:

I don't have any objection to changing the document name to "Stateless
DHCPv6 Server". 

I would suggest that perhaps section 4 have an explicit reference to RFC
3315 and DHCPv6:

4. Basic Requirements for Implementation of DHCP

      Several sections of the DHCPv6 specification [1] provide background
                                  ^^               ^^^
      information or define parts of the specification that are common
      to all implementations:

Note that in most places you refer to RFC 3315 as "DHCPv6 specification" and
not DHCP specification.

Also, you should review your use of DHCP vs. DHCPv6 throughout. In section
2, you state "Throughout this document, "DHCP" refers to DHCP for IPv6." But
DHCPv6 is used fairly frequently. Personally, I'd prefer that "DHCPv6" be
used instead of just "DHCP". But, whichever you decide, I think it important
that the usage is consistent.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request to change the
title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.

I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the potential
for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg <at> ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

RE: Valid states for use of DHCPRELEASE?

yes, of course, but it is not a very interesting state:  once the client
transitions to the STOPPED state, nothing else will happen.  The intended
behavior of a DHCP client was for it to be persistent because it was
expected to request (and be offered) a lease with a limited lifetime that
would be periodically renewed by the client.  That mechanism ceases to
function if the client goes to a STOPPED state.

--Barr

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kevin A. Noll
> Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2003 20:23
> To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>
> Could I also claim that an additional state could be
> added to the client state machine (call it "STOPPED") that
> the client transitions to after sending a DHCPRELEASE?
>
> The assumption would be that the STOPPED state would be
> associated with a graceful shutdown of the system or with
> some external process that caused the client to RELEASE. If
> this is the case, then STOPPED would be a final state (like
> INIT or INIT-REBOOT are the beginning states).
>

RE: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

Bernie - just for clarity, I'm guessing "Stateless DHCPv6 Service" (and 
your "Server" was a typo) is OK with you.

I must admit the use of "DHCPv6 specification" throughout the doc is a 
legacy from originally writing the doc prior to the publication of RFC 
3315.  I'll just use RFC 3315 throughout.

Regarding DHCPv6 vs. DHCP - I looked back and found we weren't consistent 
in RFC 3315, using mostly DHCP but also using DHCPv6 on a few (apparently 
random) occasions.  Either DHCP or DHCPv6 would be OK with me.    Anyone 
else have a preference?  I'll be sure the doc is consistent, whichever term 
we decide to use.

- Ralph

At 11:49 AM 1/2/2004 -0500, Bernie Volz wrote:
>Ralph:
>
>I don't have any objection to changing the document name to "Stateless
>DHCPv6 Server".
>
>I would suggest that perhaps section 4 have an explicit reference to RFC
>3315 and DHCPv6:
>
>4. Basic Requirements for Implementation of DHCP
>
>       Several sections of the DHCPv6 specification [1] provide background
>                                   ^^               ^^^
>       information or define parts of the specification that are common
>       to all implementations:
>
>Note that in most places you refer to RFC 3315 as "DHCPv6 specification" and
>not DHCP specification.
>
>Also, you should review your use of DHCP vs. DHCPv6 throughout. In section
>2, you state "Throughout this document, "DHCP" refers to DHCP for IPv6." But
>DHCPv6 is used fairly frequently. Personally, I'd prefer that "DHCPv6" be
>used instead of just "DHCP". But, whichever you decide, I think it important
>that the usage is consistent.
>
>- Bernie
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
>Droms
>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
>To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
>
>The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
>Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request to change the
>title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
>subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.
>
>I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
>and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
>protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the potential
>for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"
>
>- Ralph
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

RE: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

Yes, server was a typo. Using RFC 3315 would be fine.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms <at> cisco.com] 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:16 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

Bernie - just for clarity, I'm guessing "Stateless DHCPv6 Service" (and 
your "Server" was a typo) is OK with you.

I must admit the use of "DHCPv6 specification" throughout the doc is a 
legacy from originally writing the doc prior to the publication of RFC 
3315.  I'll just use RFC 3315 throughout.

Regarding DHCPv6 vs. DHCP - I looked back and found we weren't consistent 
in RFC 3315, using mostly DHCP but also using DHCPv6 on a few (apparently 
random) occasions.  Either DHCP or DHCPv6 would be OK with me.    Anyone 
else have a preference?  I'll be sure the doc is consistent, whichever term 
we decide to use.

- Ralph

At 11:49 AM 1/2/2004 -0500, Bernie Volz wrote:
>Ralph:
>
>I don't have any objection to changing the document name to "Stateless
>DHCPv6 Server".
>
>I would suggest that perhaps section 4 have an explicit reference to RFC
>3315 and DHCPv6:
>
>4. Basic Requirements for Implementation of DHCP
>
>       Several sections of the DHCPv6 specification [1] provide background
>                                   ^^               ^^^
>       information or define parts of the specification that are common
>       to all implementations:
>
>Note that in most places you refer to RFC 3315 as "DHCPv6 specification"
and
>not DHCP specification.
>
>Also, you should review your use of DHCP vs. DHCPv6 throughout. In section
>2, you state "Throughout this document, "DHCP" refers to DHCP for IPv6."
But
>DHCPv6 is used fairly frequently. Personally, I'd prefer that "DHCPv6" be
>used instead of just "DHCP". But, whichever you decide, I think it
important
>that the usage is consistent.
>
>- Bernie
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
>Droms
>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
>To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
>
>The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
>Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request to change the
>title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
>subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.
>
>I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
>and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
>protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the
potential
>for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"
>
>- Ralph
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Re: Valid states for use of DHCPRELEASE?

On Jan 2, 2004, at 11:54 AM, Barr Hibbs wrote:
> yes, of course, but it is not a very interesting state:  once the 
> client
> transitions to the STOPPED state, nothing else will happen.

Until something changes.   You don't leave the STOPPED state without 
the system's or user's intervention, but that's not to say that you 
never leave that state.   In any case, it's an interesting state if 
only in the sense that every client I've ever used supports it, even 
though it's never documented in RFC2131.   :')

RE: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

This sounds like correct title to me Ralph per IESG.
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
> To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
> 
> 
> The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, 
> "A Guide to
> Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request 
> to change the
> title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the 
> document defines a
> subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to 
> implementing RFC 3315.
> 
> I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference 
> into RFC 3315,
> and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* 
> describe a new
> protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add 
> to the potential
> for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change 
> the title of
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg <at> ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>