Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Mon, 16 September 2013 16:13 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.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 797A121F9F9F for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:13:24 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 cSHkZDSQxarU for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:13:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-bk0-x22e.google.com (mail-bk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4008:c01::22e]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3471311E82AC for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:12:07 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-bk0-f46.google.com with SMTP id 6so1608450bkj.19 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
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=FcQkF/ucuZxst8ZSUHV2CGmJc/R92oAV21C3yi+QAXc=; b=DHTQPY9UFixwfvc8UnITmSYj3EfPP05bgmc9sWFnr58pNxEg3oMVI2dtrUNcKVqiBp ZuSlDT+MARoWLQ5wk3wkdrFQcVsz2ezk5CUTrWU9Qy4TPx/cxsvBHumsuaA/N4Ogg5Nc 6AiKg7KTzd0Mpf0/5sN0Z9ORb1XC5RbixTpZ+vEdS4UbRfHtcwqzqkUpYaT68AyrVZnu 6P7rZD8v8SHPdAHk4WN45oICv5qT58QnOJc5qSMhz94yOCEtEn1JF3NGTXlXqJwVhIYl 7pxWWJslYmyLBJmw4y5qe3RJuY0PTc8OYn6Qwik4l0XM4Y11OIFeaf+ncp7QmrvX/+AV GuDA==
X-Received: by 10.204.63.7 with SMTP id z7mr24860962bkh.23.1379347926297; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:12:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [10.0.0.100] (host-109-107-11-157.ip.jarsat.pl. [109.107.11.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id zl3sm8144548bkb.4.1969.12.31.16.00.00 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 16 Sep 2013 09:12:05 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <52372DD1.8040402@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 18:12:01 +0200
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130803 Thunderbird/17.0.8
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <52123110.10205@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52123110.10205@gmail.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.4.6
X-TagToolbar-Keys: D20130916181201738
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
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: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 16:13:25 -0000

On 19.08.2013 16:52, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
> During Berlin meeting chairs asked if there is still interest in the
> prefix-pool-option. There was nobody interested in the work in the room.
> The unanimous consensus in the room was to drop it. I just wanted to
> confirm that on the list.
> 
> If you are interested in this work, want to support it and participate
> in it, please let us know by replying to the mailing list. Otherwise
> we'll drop this work and mark that draft as a dead WG document.
> 
> Please respond within 2 weeks (until Sep. 2nd).
It seems that the discussion is more or less concluded as there were no
new comments posted in a long time. It seems clear that this work does
not have a WG consensus. There was a strong opposition to move this
document forward. There was minimal support for it in its current form.
As such, the chair chose to mark this document as dead WG item.

This does not mean that the problem the draft was trying to solve
magically disappeared. One of the suggestions made was to try to write a
clear problem statement. If people involved in this work are willing to
pursue this problem further, that is the recommended way to go.

I'd also like to point out that a dead draft is not really irreversibly
dead. If the envisaged problem statement draft is well written and well
received, perhaps people will change their mind about this solution and
decide that prefix-pool is worth pursuing after all. It is possible to
revive it later and change its state to something more alive.
Alternatively, some other solutions may emerge from the discussions
about problem statement.

Bernie and Tomek