Re: Preliminary notes from WG meeting in Memphis

Charles Perkins <cperkins@wishbone.corp.sun.com> Sat, 12 April 1997 21:53 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa16217; 12 Apr 97 17:53 EDT
Received: from marge.bucknell.edu by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15772; 12 Apr 97 17:53 EDT
Received: from reef.bucknell.edu by mail.bucknell.edu; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/17Jul96-0109PM) id AA01444; Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:46:10 -0400
Date: Sat, 12 Apr 1997 17:46:10 -0400
Message-Id: <libSDtMail.9704121438.9664.cperkins@finesse/wishbone>
Errors-To: droms@bucknell.edu
Reply-To: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Originator: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Sender: dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu
Precedence: bulk
From: Charles Perkins <cperkins@wishbone.corp.sun.com>
To: Multiple recipients of list <dhcp-v4@bucknell.edu>
Subject: Re: Preliminary notes from WG meeting in Memphis
X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas
X-Comment: Discussion of DHCP for IPv4
X-Mailer: dtmail 1.1.0 CDE Version 1.1_50 SunOS 5.5.1 sun4u sparc
Content-Type: TEXT/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0

> >* DHCPv6 (dhc-dhcpv6-09.txt, dhc-v6exts-05.txt)
> >                                             - current drafts need further
> >  editorial review and clarification; serious concerns about security
> >  raised by WG; v6 docs also need to reflect current v4 operational
> >  experience (esp. wrt multiple servers)
> 
> The strategy agreed to at the DHCPv6 session was:  
> 
> We will fix editorial legacy parts missed in DHCPv6 spec.  That will
> move to IETF Last Call.  If the IESG and IETF find no other issues Jeff
> Schiller will permit it to move to PS as we promised to add key
> selection to our v6-exts draft.   Charlie and I should have a fix for
> the ext draft shortly.

This matches my recollection.  I reviewed with Jeff a proposal for
introducing key selection in a way quite compatible with our current
drafts, and he seemed to indicate that it made good sense.  I don't
see that the key selection should have any effect on the progress of
the base DHCPv6 specification to IETF last call.
  

> What "exactly/precisely" does the last statement mean "v6 docs need to
> reflect current v4 operational experience"...  I don't recall that
> discussion at the DHCPv6 meeting.

I don't remember anything about this at the meeting.  I don't
think that protocol documents going to Proposed Standard are
generally expected to show operational experience, especially
in the IPv6 protocol suite.  What's going on here?


Regards,
Charlie P.