IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Sat, 10 March 2012 22:29 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72E3D21F84E2 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -105.27
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-105.27 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.085, BAYES_40=-0.185, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bUBX2o-fx3i5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og102.obsmtp.com (exprod7og102.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.157]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABBDC21F84B9 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob102.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT1vVrqCcPiDsH39sw0I9Sdk8sLRcsZcA@postini.com; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:02 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 92E771B8480 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 81CCA19005C; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:29:01 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Sat, 10 Mar 2012 14:28:55 -0800
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Bharat Joshi <bharat_joshi@infosys.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt
Thread-Index: AQHM/w0tkeQuZjxVEUSrkbzqG08Zpw==
Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:28:54 +0000
Message-ID: <67E4F90D-7743-45A5-8595-C82DE36EC0F9@nominum.com>
References: <27E2BF10-7AEE-4B64-B04A-87708CB02C00@fugue.com>
In-Reply-To: <27E2BF10-7AEE-4B64-B04A-87708CB02C00@fugue.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <8ED6633891DC3740A679D3BE3F492923@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-relay-id-suboption-09.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 10 Mar 2012 22:29:03 -0000

On Dec 15, 2011, at 2:17 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> wrote:
>  I've read the draft and it looks reasonable, but I'd like to see more review, so I'm doing this last call in hopes that someone will take the time to look at the document.   Because of the Christmas and New Years' holidays that some participants will be celebrating, we won't call consensus on this until January 5.

Looks like this one fell through the cracks.   I issued a last call in December, scheduled to do the consensus call on January 5.   As is fairly common (and perfectly fine) nobody responded until well after the deadline, at which point we got one thorough review and a lot of support for the document.

So it passes last call, and hopefully the authors will reissue a new version that contains any changes that were suggested and that the authors think make sense.   Bharat Joshi, since you asked for the last call and have been doing updates, can you comment on whether you have updated the document to address issues raised in last call?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email