Subject: [dhcwg] Leasequery draft update

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 16:05:52 -0500

Folks,

I have updated the leasequery draft to try to address the issues
raised by Thomas Narten concerning the problem statement and how
it relates to the actual protcol extension described in the
draft.

I have changed the Abstract and the beginning of sections 1, 3,
4, and 5.  The changes were restricted to the first few
paragraphs of each numbered section.

I mis-read the IETF deadline and so missed it.  The draft is
available, however, at:

http://www.dhcp.org/draft-ietf-dhc-leasequery-05.txt

I also made two minor editorial corrections to the draft found
during the WG last call.

Kim

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2003 19:12:04 -0800

repeating what I said today during the working group meeting, I see no
harm (and possible future value) if a DHCPv4 server can reply to a Lease
Query message with whatever information it has at that moment about the
current (and former) state of IP address leases.

Since this effectively is the identical information that a relay agent
could glean from the packet stream flowing between clients and servers,
I see no reason not to permit a server to answer the Lease Query with
information about previous IP address lease status, if it has maintained
such information.

I agree that the draft could be simplified by removing all consideration
of "reservations."

--Barr