RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

We should clearly separate (1) the technical comments on the present
Internet-draft from (2) the policy question on how IETF would like DHCP
options and sub-options to be temporarily assigned for testing.

(1) MUST/SHOULD re: RFC 3396.
This is related to the CCC and present sub-options. We will get closure
on this asap. Personally, I'm ok with changing the current draft to
mandate a MUST on 3396.

(2) policy question:
For now, we have a short term need to get the CCC option approved and
passed IESG so that we can update our spec and vendors can start
building to it. This is time critical here to implement the IETF RFC by
certification wave 26.
Couldn't the policy discussion should be eliminated from this draft for
now by stating the conclusion of the Oct 15 thread, that is: 
IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client
Configuration sub-options with an "IETF consensus" approval policy as
described in RFC 2434 [2]. Future proposed sub-options will submitted to
IETF for review.
--> This means: IETF consensus is required and IANA assigns the value.

I think the rest of the discussion belongs to
draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-03.txt. It should not be
specific to CableLabs. As long as we address in a future document how we
can get some experimental codes to define the functionality and test it
while the IETF review process takes place, I think we are ok. 
Thomas did address some of the concerns I raised on Oct 15 in
draft-narten-iana-experimental-allocations-03.txt and Rich made some
good points.

Jean-Francois.
/----------------------
Jean-Francois Mule
CableLabs, PacketCable
jfm@cablelabs.com
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg