[dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Adopted

Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com> Mon, 23 December 2013 11:37 UTC

Return-Path: <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 69B511ADFA4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id C4KFyV4cvQpB for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x22b.google.com (mail-ee0-x22b.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22b]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC3221ADFA3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c13so2257403eek.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:28 -0800 (PST)
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:cc:subject :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=duD6iOc+ry0/kQc+lC+xu/8GnPqzLMhHKA3loXLC1Yg=; b=jVP31ZSechJBUuYpTnC0rhFtk8WVXwE8EtboX9vtYZgelnCkxzmCiO8IwkZtnENWpq pwVAwnhBq0Guhuw/rvNHc6n4uFhiGSLhoNpNi1jsn0Qf3wr2/Qw6OXB0UdwlMytAnb1u Qrl8lRGLGBaEuybAvp/PHmxW/6Xyn9xIVl4acRqOGkBmFcNfodK2gK5H86B/8W9Sdf2A MPL9PamYKCeRNXCVZBesfobE4DOD07+qCJ5p5rPybu7COB4BKDlRIDcHGDeikmLSsyds W30zEX46EGOqFnk2cso07F+6tJfX2h178P7db7DhUXt+k5aEilU35dMSYhWzuV3oGPxn +B+g==
X-Received: by with SMTP id s48mr20626337eew.3.1387798648887; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Received: from thomson-osx.local (078088096057.lomza.vectranet.pl. []) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g47sm44749497eeo.19.2013. for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Dec 2013 03:37:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <52B82076.1080007@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 12:37:26 +0100
From: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD09A3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1ADD09A3@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Adopted
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 23 Dec 2013 11:37:34 -0000

On 04.12.2013, 17:46, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hi all:
> This is a WG Call for Adoption for
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.
> This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG
> consensus to adopt this work as DHC WG item. Please state whether or
> not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you
> are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response.
> This adoption call will complete on December 18, 2013.

With my chair hat off, I do not support this work. It is not that I'm
objecting it, either. I would count my vote as abstain. Personally I
thought that having active leasequery standardized for v6 only would be
another (small) incentive to migrate to IPv6. But the reality, as
Mathias nicely described it, is that for the foreseeable future, we will
have v4-only and dual-stack networks and people who intend to deploy
active leasequery will need it for both protocols. So since the v6 draft
is moving forward and the work needed to make its v4 counterpart is
minimal, I suppose it is ok to define the same capability for both

With my chair hat on:
As Bernie is co-author of this work, I had to assess this adoption call
on my own. There is support for doing this work, but it is somewhat
smaller than for its v6 counter-part. There were quite a few people
supporting this draft, but many of them were directly or indirectly
involved in the work. There was noone objecting that work.

I made a decision to adopt this work. The draft passed adoption call.
But I wanted to make it clear: the level of support expressed is
disappointing and it will not be sufficient to pass WGLC. If you (the
generic you, I'm addressing all WG participants here) are interested in
moving this work forward, please be more active.

Authors, please upload this draft as WG item.