Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!

[Marcin Siodelski <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 (
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design) believe
> it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and
> indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is
> important!****
>
> ** **
>
> This document is the 2nd series of documents related to DHCPv6 failover –
> the first is
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirementswhich is currently being reviewed by the IESG for publication approval.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.*
> ***
>
> ** **
>
> As Tomek is a co-author, I will primarily evaluate consensus after
> 2013-08-09 (August 9th). This is a 3 week last call because of the Berlin
> IETF meeting and also because of summer-time vacations (at least for those
> of us in the northern hemisphere).
>

I read the document from the top to the bottom and made extensive review.
All valid issues I had pointed out were addressed in version -03. Other
comments which were identified as non-issues were responded via email. One
of the comments which I made was referring to the chapter 9.11. where I was
unclear "whether servers are responsive or unresponsive to the clients when
they are in the RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED state" (see
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14575.html). In the
recent reply to this email thread I clarified the question as it had been
unclear for the authors which part of text I had been referring to. This
question may still need to be responded. I apologize for the late answer.

In general, very good work. I support advancing this document.

Marcin