[dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00
Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com> Sun, 10 October 2004 13:29 UTC
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09987 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:29:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from megatron.ietf.org ([132.151.6.71]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CGdvs-0007ek-4L for dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:40:16 -0400
Received: from localhost.localdomain ([127.0.0.1] helo=megatron.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CGdk0-0007L9-ST; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:28:00 -0400
Received: from odin.ietf.org ([132.151.1.176] helo=ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1CGdel-0006nH-7O for dhcwg@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:22:35 -0400
Received: from ietf-mx.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id JAA09729 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:22:33 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mail.thingmagic.com ([207.31.248.245] helo=thingmagic.com) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.33) id 1CGdp6-0007Ys-Ef for dhcwg@ietf.org; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:33:16 -0400
Received: from [69.173.190.121] (account margaret HELO [192.168.1.103]) by thingmagic.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.1.8) with ESMTP-TLS id 170692; Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:17:26 -0400
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Sender: margaret@mail.thingmagic.com
Message-Id: <p06020400bd8ee1e2c50f@[192.168.1.103]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:22:22 -0400
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Margaret Wasserman <margaret@thingmagic.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: c3a18ef96977fc9bcc21a621cbf1174b
Cc: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, vijayak@india.hp.com
Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: 32b73d73e8047ed17386f9799119ce43
Hi Ralph and the DHCP WG, Is the WG still interested in seeing the DHCPv6 SNTP option published as a Proposed Standard RFC? The IESG reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00.txt in February 2004 and there were three discusses from Thomas Narten, Alex Zinin and Harald Alvestrand (see below). I believe that there is a good understanding of how to address all three of these discusses. We even had a conference call with Harald to determine how to address his discuss, and we agreed to specific wording. Although I have sent several reminders to the author, the document has not been updated since November 2003. I also haven't received any response to at least my last two queries. So, I don't even know that the author is still reachable. I'm not sure what to do in this situation. I don't see any sign that there is significant WG interest in this document (at least no one has asked me about it), and I don't feel comfortable with having a document sit in this partially IESG-approved state indefinitely, especially through an AD transition (such as the Security AD transition we expect at IETF 61). So, unless this document is updated to address (or at least attempt to address) the three IESG discuss comments below by the Internet-Draft cut-off for IETF 61 (October 25th @ 9:00am EST), I will return this draft to the DHC WG (by moving it to the "AD is Watching" state), which will cause it to expire. Then, if the WG chooses to do further work in this area, it will need to be re-submitted to the IESG. Please speak up if you consider this work important and want to see it move forward! Margaret IESG Discusses and Comments Harald Alvestrand: Discuss: [2004-02-05] This document should specify whether or not SNTPv4 servers can be listed in the options list. If they can, it should specify how they are listed. If they cannot, it should say so; it would be beneficial to have it explain how a client with both IPv4 and IPv6 stacks decides which SNTP servers to use. Thomas Narten: Discuss: [2004-01-22] > The Simple Network Time Protocol Servers option provides a list of > one or more IPv6 addresses of SNTP [3] servers available to the > client for synchronization. The SNTP servers SHOULD be listed in > the order of preference. For interoperability, it would be better to say that clients MUST processes the servers as if they were in priority order. Whether the server takes advantage of that or not is an operational issue. But if the clients aren't guaranteed to process them in order, there is little point in the server putting them in order. Jon Peterson: Comment: [2004-01-22] The end of the sentence in Section 3 might want to include a direct reference to the DHCPv6 spec (presumably, [1]). Bert Wijnen: Comment: [2004-01-20] From OPS DIrectorate (Pekka): nits: - spell out SNTP in the Abstract - acknowledgement section should be split to a real acknowledgement section, and the regular ISOC funding acknowledgement. - IPR statement could be added. - add a dot at the end of the paragraph in section 2. Alex Zinin: Discuss: [2004-01-22] Section 5 should say what the receiver should do if the option [number] appears in a message it is not supposed to. _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00 Margaret Wasserman