[dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-05 - Passed with issues

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Wed, 04 February 2015 19:20 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C70F1A1B72 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:20:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JenxFVeJhHXq for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wi0-x234.google.com (mail-wi0-x234.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::234]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 84AB41A1B61 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 4 Feb 2015 11:20:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-wi0-f180.google.com with SMTP id h11so5934795wiw.1 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:20:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=rdu/sAVnmk6sV5WktZCjOj0Aq0ukZQM5cgbaThdkNDQ=; b=C8NUzaT5O6UQdEWiqnaOnVp27PoC9kcTkKSRAADxhoVnbVI1NcIZDqK3dpbqN+Z+Dd 6SFetbaKimFxlEi93eD5b79TuHDde/rBkkSYXieEAzWz34XlPfoj2f8ipHMrGKQLwA3y 4xroZMpu7mGLrYQR3TIUOncBNhIdsTfF7ynrvr190ZNltbzrtemdUKrDp+7Gcm3C9RRG edt4tFCcRNZ53ulyrfngMUqYSSPYDJykysgFrustyB2B8prxMzpSOkijhFUHOg8JYAgD LeymHPwIZMLUvgzsYoUJsbT5EdlLVWtYQYVllyBG3LLNbYvgasyWOF/Eg4hlKw96LKre 43Qg==
X-Received: by 10.180.184.132 with SMTP id eu4mr7374778wic.49.1423077630136; Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:20:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (109107011157.gdansk.vectranet.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id ev7sm3976953wjb.47.2015.02.04.11.20.28 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 04 Feb 2015 11:20:29 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54D270F8.4090300@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:20:24 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <54932112.3080008@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <54932112.3080008@gmail.com>
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20150204202024928
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/7yP7ZtQw652DcjI4oDcsaBDMObA>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-05 - Passed with issues
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:20:37 -0000

I just realized that the WGLC summary was discussed among chairs, but
never sent to the ML. Sorry about the delay.

The chairs have reviewed the feedback received for the
draft-ietf-dhc-access-network-identifier-05. The explicit feedback
received during the WGLC was disappointing. First and foremost, this
draft defines options that have nothing to do with DHCP. DHCP is merely
a delivery channel. Had there been another WG in IETF that could take
this work, it should have been done there. Unfortunately, there's no
appropriate group in IETF, so DHC had to take up this task. From this
perspective, it is understandable that there is minor interest, as the
DHCP community is not the primary user of those options.

Furthermore, this draft was presented in DHC meetings several times, it
never received any opposition and a small number of people expressed
support for it.

Finally, both chairs and the shepherd (Sheng agreed to take this role,
thanks!) reviewed this draft and didn't find anything particularly wrong
with it. A number of improvements are needed, but that is something that
can be easily fixed. Therefore we decided to consider this WGLC to pass
with issues. An updated revision addressing raised comments is needed.
We'll have another short WGLC for it, just to confirm that the issues
are indeed addressed.

Bernie volunteered to help addressing the issues. Thanks for doing this
effort!

Bernie & Tomek