IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 15:38 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 40C4821F855A for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:15 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.516
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.516 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.084, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id q8F9BaL6KDyP for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og121.obsmtp.com (exprod7og121.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.20]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 964F621F855F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob121.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEoU5kfRBHfZ6tTBFxXXcFS21C/QE7kS@postini.com; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 08:38:14 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D90691B832F for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CC8E919005C; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.132]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 08:38:13 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpd/JdswgAB/xoA=
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:38:13 +0000
Message-ID: <21C54D57-372F-46B0-892B-398919992546@nominum.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <243F27FC502C704585DBB564AF1D9DD6@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 15:38:15 -0000

On Sep 7, 2012, at 11:09 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> Where does this Last Call stand? August 24th has passed ...

There were a lot of comments in the WGLC, and lot of support for what is to be accomplished here, but several people raised concerns as well.   There were a few responses in favor of advancing the current document; Hemant Singh had some suggestions, to which Ole responded.   I do not know if the responses satisfied Hemant's concerns.   I raised some concerns which were not really addressed.   Wes Beebe raised a concern which Ole responded to, but again I don't know if Wes was satisfied with Ole's response.

So I think this is borderline.   There's clearly widespread support for what this draft is trying to do; I would like to hear from Hemant and Wes as to whether they are satisfied with Ole's responses.   I tend to agree with Wes' sentiment that we need to think this through very carefully; I would like to see a new draft that addresses Hemant's and Wes' concerns, if possible, and then do a second last call to get more review.   Does that work for the authors?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email