Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com> Thu, 24 January 2002 23:26 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09606 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:26:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA01533 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:26:27 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29538; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id RAA29516 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from toccata.fugue.com (toccata.fugue.com [204.152.186.142]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id RAA08607 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 17:42:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from green.bisbee.fugue.com (dsl-64-193-175-153.telocity.com [64.193.175.153]) by toccata.fugue.com (8.11.3/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0OMd5a27979; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:39:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dechen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by green.bisbee.fugue.com (8.10.2/8.6.11) with ESMTP id g0OMfg700380; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:41:42 -0600 (CST)
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 16:40:14 -0600
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v480)
Cc: "'Ralph Droms'" <rdroms@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
To: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CE13@EAMBUNT705>
Message-Id: <55537890-111B-11D6-A6AA-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.480)
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

> I fully support Ralph in this. I want to make sure we can get the base 
> draft through as that will likely take some time for the IESG to digest 
> and we don't want a small issue to hold up this main work.

AFAIK we do not have a problem.   We are wasting substantial time arguing 
about this.   Why don't we just send it to the IESG and see what they say?
    If they push back hard on an option, *then* we can take it out of the 
draft.   Or do we think that if we just take out all the "non-essential" 
options, IESG will pass this without comment?   :')


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg