Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Tue, 06 September 2016 01:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6293C12B00D for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:41:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.028
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.028 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LEL3UO_EcT5F for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4DBD812B006 for <>; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 18:41:44 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=15992; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1473126104; x=1474335704; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=Y6GVDXbRBme6j51lWkW1ywH4FsBL1e8dRWD+MU0YdMw=; b=L6RKkVCWdRVOfs6MuBGebUkkkopabV2AYUlj1TAGxM+tpt8jmYw5IW09 CORK9Sb/oqvegtXutnRqf2mH8dkcwKdPJjhsIUoayRKuheo59MlblE6xW UdEzaTk3AZFgc7dJzAV/KSqaZzPiS8YJ73hAXfZdq+KtAfc+UwNW6xD9l M=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,289,1470700800"; d="scan'208,217";a="319847755"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 06 Sep 2016 01:41:43 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u861fhxC032687 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Tue, 6 Sep 2016 01:41:43 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 20:41:42 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Mon, 5 Sep 2016 20:41:42 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: 神明達哉 <>, Ted Lemon <>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
Thread-Index: AQHSBU9435MONICEd0SXLa4V51dyuqBm+NmAgAEcjQCAA56XsA==
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:41:42 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_115af86f8b8d410f8591e9f76e666212XCHALN003ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, Simon Hobson <>, "Kim Kinnear (kkinnear)" <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2016 01:41:48 -0000

And, there’s still time to read the entire document (WGLC ends a week for now). And, the WGLC could be extended if someone requested more time – yes, it is a rather long and somewhat complex document. We extended 3315bis.

-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Saturday, September 03, 2016 9:22 AM
To: 神明達哉 <>
Cc: <> <>; Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

Jinmei-san, the question is, is it better to publish something that's basically good but has a few non-blocking issues, or to not publish it at all?   I too would like to see the document get more review and maybe a couple of interoperating implementations, but if we have to wait for the bis document for that, I'm okay with it.

On Fri, Sep 2, 2016 at 4:23 PM, 神明達哉 <<>> wrote:
At Fri, 2 Sep 2016 15:23:13 -0400,
Kim Kinnear <<>> wrote:

> We have some detailed technical reviews.  What we *really* need now
> are people to just read it and say:
>   "I think this draft should move forward".
> That's all you have to do.  Any review would be nice, but we really
> just need people to read it and send in email that says "move this
> forward".

I feel sorry that I simply couldn't find time to read this big
document and provide useful feedback, but I also feel nervous by
seeing this's hard to believe that if someone reads this
size of complicated technical document and can just say "it should
move forward".  Even after getting reviews and revised, it's quite
likely for every new reader to find at least one or a few non-trivial
issues.  So, if the only response to the call is just "move forward",
I wonder if it's really a careful read.  And, now, if we move forward
just by counting a certain number of 'yes', does that mean something?
If we think we've already got sufficient level of technical reviews,
isn't it itself enough to move forward (to which I wouldn't be
opposed)?  If not, counting more simple "move forward" responses just
as a prerequisite for moving forward doesn't seem to be a good way to
move forward.

Just my two cents.  Again, I'm sorry I cannot be more productive...

JINMEI, Tatuya

dhcwg mailing list<>