Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London)
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>, "[email-masked]" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 14:57:30 +0000
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>

Yes, but RFC 3633 does and so likely we will need that definition once we merge the two into a single DHCPv6 specification.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Alexandru Petrescu
Sent: Monday, January 20, 2014 9:17 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Agenda Items for IETF-89 (London)

Le 20/01/2014 15:10, Tomek Mrugalski a écrit :
> On 13.01.2014 19:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
>> The London IETF is not that far off (Mar 2-7). See 
>> http://www.ietf.org/meeting/89/index.html for more details, including 
>> venue information and important dates.
>>
>> Thus, we are starting the call for agenda items. The co-chairs will 
>> finalize the agenda about two weeks before the meeting and will give 
>> priority to items as follows (in this order):
> It is somewhat odd, but it's been a week already and we haven't 
> received a single slot request yet.
>
> With my chair hat off, I'd like to request 20 minutes slot for the 
> RFC3315-bis status update.
>
> Topic: RFC3315bis work
> Presenter: Tomek Mrugalski
> I-D: draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc3315bis-00
> Time: 20 minutes

YEs I agree with this request.

Someone and I made some comment recently in v6ops about the contents of RFC3315, with respect to the definition of term 'prefix length' yet never used.

And of course, I suppose many are curious about the advancement of this.

Alex

>
> Tomek
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg