Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com> Wed, 23 January 2002 00:48 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 TAA15687 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:48:14 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id TAA20243 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:48:16 -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 TAA20081; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:09 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id TAA20058 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mail.users.bit-net.com (www.bit-net.com [208.146.132.4]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id TAA15549 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost by mail.users.bit-net.com; (5.65v3.2/1.1.8.2/30Jul96-0143PM) id AA16493; Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:03 -0500
Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2002 19:40:03 -0500 (EST)
From: Jim Bound <seamus@bit-net.com>
To: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20020122144616.036c6a28@funnel.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <Pine.OSF.3.95.1020122193923.12698E-100000@www.bit-net.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
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

We require the IPv6 options for IPv6 Transition now.


/jim


On Tue, 22 Jan 2002, Ralph Droms wrote:

> We've recently experienced a proliferation of proposed and defined options 
> for DHCPv6.  Initially, the WG agreed to publish all options that were 
> defined at the time the base spec was completed in the same doc.  I'm 
> having second thoughts about that decision.  Here's what I'm thinking:
> 
> * The new options are adding more weight to
>    an already hefty document
> * Keeping all the options in one doc make
>    updating any one option more complicated
> * Reviewing all of these options will slow
>    down the acceptance process
> 
> I propose that we put a moratorium on adding any new options to 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt, and move any non-essential options out of 
> draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt into individual drafts.  The definition of 
> "essential" is open to discussion; here's a first pass at a list of the 
> options to retain in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-22.txt:
> 
> * DHCP unique identifier option
> * Identity association option
> * IA Address option
> * Requested Temporary Addresses (RTA) Option
> * Option request option
> * Preference option
> * Elapsed Time
> * Client message option
> * Server message option
> * Authentication option
> * Server unicast option
> * Domain Search Option
> * Domain Name Server Option
> * Status Code Option
> 
> - Ralph
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 


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