[dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Fri, 17 January 2014 21:50 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 []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C6CA1ACCEA for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
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 ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id H960TyfLWh0Z for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x235.google.com (mail-ee0-x235.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::235]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 96E781ACCE0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f53.google.com with SMTP id t10so2366637eei.40 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:22 -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=N6Z8OKYTxkRRheDVPvul0yfWYhd4Vdpa8qA0daaDrFA=; b=EEnSIybamzTOlxcPDNGIdPzRFGSGbLuldtiKYmLxvdS7PB0nvwe0JxCQqdbl9GwPJF TsTC2dzNFjFCQTvRqPsZdhs+Vy7w48udpRv9UBfqWfr4jShnXn6awvb4dQGD7zdStBQT aevOLVlXavFFTS1KYAzSs3sxq7zLylIrC9YjESfhgY2wbxSVsDRYzirDMbuTiXUo0GAZ HsacNw5vNdtsM7Hsv5XN0KTVCS5P3s84ZV3WBZDn25gYQ9Lwax1zn/Ab9gi5QrA4OarX Ql5Vkl8v45oqSi+Ie//QuxP8iMISejqHzY566Pzc5jvwV7eKbUZfQ/Jj56qCJWhre5m3 Pxow==
X-Received: by with SMTP id a1mr4865389eei.81.1389995422461; Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thomson-osx.local (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id z46sm30236215een.1.2014. for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Fri, 17 Jan 2014 13:50:21 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 22:50:21 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
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: Fri, 17 Jan 2014 21:50:37 -0000


Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
(http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.

If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object
this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit
your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I
like the other solution better" is not a technical comment.

Please note that:
- Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure
IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question.

- There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must not
do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issue
at a time.

- -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list
discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4
without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends:

With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not
reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in
scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prove
whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere.
There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every
possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much
more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time to
wrap things up here and move on.

Bernie & Tomek