Subject: User Class draft

From: Steve G <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 07:51:51 -0400

Hello,

How do y'all feel about adding an optional expiration field to the
individual classes?

After all, these are credentials of sorts..

Keep in mind that  an user class may be used for a specific, short-term
purpose ( e.g.: to grant extra bandwith for a video conference).

Also, do not take it for granted that this will work sort of like a
password.
(i.e. the user enters it somehow on the host..)
It is perfectly conceivable, that in real life, a CMTS will tag it on,
similarly
to the relay agent option.

I understand the desire to make this simple, but there is also a need to
make it
useful.

/sG

---

From: "Barr Hibbs" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 09:34:12 -0700

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve G ([email-masked])
> Sent: Friday, May 26, 2000 4:52 AM

> I understand the desire to make this simple, but there is also a need to

...Steve, I don't mean to be difficult, but I believe this is the first time
that there has been any discussion about User Class Identifiers having an
expiration time, starting time, or any other sort of usage limits associated
with them.  While that could indeed be a very useful consideration for many
DHCP options, I really don't want to go back and reinvent all of the options
right now, nor do I think that adding this to the User Class draft at this
point helps it any.

--Barr

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2000 11:20:04 -0700

> How do y'all feel about adding an optional expiration field to the

No.   The draft is in last call.   Please don't try to change it.

> After all, these are credentials of sorts..

No.   These are not credentials.  They are a voluntary description,
provided by the client.   The DHCP authentication draft talks about
credentials.   The user class has nothing to do with credentials.

> purpose ( e.g.: to grant extra bandwith for a video conference).

This is not what the user class option is for.

> to the relay agent option.

This is not what the draft says.   The draft says that the option is
provided by the client, and that the DHCP client should have a
mechanism for letting the *user* specify the class.

> I understand the desire to make this simple, but there is also a need to

You want a different option that does something different.   Please
propose that option, rather than trying to piggyback your needs onto
an existing option that does something else.

			       _MelloN_