Subject: Re: [Dhcpv6bis] [dhcpv6bis] #131 (XML 3315): Confusion on T1/T2 times (option values vs client renew/rebind triggers)

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 2016 19:30:06 -0000

#131: Confusion on T1/T2 times (option values vs client renew/rebind triggers)

Changes (by [email-masked]):

 * milestone:  C awaiting consensus =>

Comment:

 No one raised any objections to the proposal. Now just awaiting ticket
 #142 and #61 work to update the text). Though this one can likely be done
 "now".

-- 
----------------------------+-----------------------------
 Reporter:  [email-masked]  |       Owner:  [email-masked]
     Type:  task            |      Status:  new
 Priority:  P1 blocker      |   Milestone:
Component:  XML 3315        |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                  |    Due Date:
----------------------------+-----------------------------

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/131#comment:4>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>

---

From: "dhcpv6bis issue tracker" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 13 Feb 2016 21:08:51 -0000

Comment (by [email-masked]):

 BUT WAIT ... when looking into this, there is already text to handle this:

    If the server is unable to extend the lifetimes of an
    address or delegated prefix in the IA, the server MAY choose not to
    include the IA Address or IA Prefix option for this address or
    delegated prefix.

 And, perhaps that is a better proposal than including the address or
 delegated prefix in the IA? (Of course, in this case if the IA cannot be
 given "other" addresses or delegated prefixes, the server likely should
 not return the NoAddrsAvail/NoPrefixAvail status code?)

 So what do people think? Should we just drop this particular issue --
 there might be other changes in the document text because of other issues?

Ticket URL: <http://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/ticket/131#comment:5>
dhcpv6bis <http://tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/>