Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue (Ends January 8, 2016)

Hello,

I support adoption of this document. I am iffy whether it should be an
Informational document. It provides pretty consistent description of
requesting/delagating routers' behaviors with respect to prefix length
hint and the motivation was that RFC3633 is "unclear" or "silent" about
it. We also considered integrating it into RFC3315bis, which makes it a
natural candidate for being standards track document. If we don't want
to create an impression that implementations/deployments must
unconditionally follow this behavior we could maybe state something
along the lines: "if the delegating router is configured to honor the
prefix hint..." etc.

Anyway, once again I support adoption of this document. Thanks to the
authors for doing this work.

Marcin

On 16.12.2015 19:45, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hello:
> 
>  
> 
> This email initiates a WG call for adoption of the
> draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03
> (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-cui-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-03)
> document as a DHC WG work item.
> 
>  
> 
> Please indicate whether you support the adoption or not, and if not, why
> not. See https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7221#section-2.2 if you have
> questions about the criteria for adoption. This document falls within
> the WG Charter (https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/charter/) under
> items #2, #3, and #4.
> 
>  
> 
> There are currently NO IPR claims against this draft (please see
> http://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dhc/documents/ as this could change at
> any time).
> 
>  
> 
> The co-chairs will determine the consensus after January 8, 2016. (This
> is a longer period than usual because of the year end Holidays.)
> 
>  
> 
> Happy Holidays & New Year!
> 
>  
> 
> -          Tomek & Bernie
> 
>  
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 