Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?

<> Wed, 21 August 2013 14:41 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A1EA121F9BEF for <>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:41:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.248
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.248 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 6BRjL3hm762V for <>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8A5F021F9BBF for <>; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 07:41:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.200]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 23C473B4489; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:41:41 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id F202A15805B; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:41:40 +0200 (CEST)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:41:40 +0200
From: <>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <>
Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 16:41:39 +0200
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
Thread-Index: Ac6eebcGVQi3urIrRBu+CosjAtFFEQAAThgA
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2013.8.21.133617
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2013 14:41:54 -0000

Hi Tomek,

Yes, you are right. Forget about my proposal to change the intended status.


>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Tomek Mrugalski []
>Envoyé : mercredi 21 août 2013 16:21
>Cc : dhcwg
>Objet : Re: [dhcwg] Anyone interested in continuing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-
>On 21.08.2013 14:41, wrote:
>> Hi Tomek,
>> I do still think draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt documents a
>> useful feature in order to have more automation and also control
>> routes aggregation instead of relying on proprietary behaviors of
>> each implementation. Of course, part of these objectives can be
>> achieved if routes are installed manually or use an out of band
>> mechanism to enforce routing aggregation policies. Still, the
>> proposal in draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt is superior because
>> the DHCP server has the knowledge of the prefix assignments; and
>> therefore routes can be triggered with dhcpv6 .
>> A way to progress with this document is to target the Experimental
>> track. Based on the experience that will be gained in real
>> deployments, the status can be revisited if required.
>No, sorry. That won't work. At least not as you'd like it to. Take a
>look at IANA registry for DHCPv6 options:
>It clearly states that assigning option codes require experts review
>*and* standards action. Experimental drafts are not standards. You are
>certainly welcome to proceed with this as experimental, but my
>understanding of the process is that it would be published without
>options assigned. And the draft (or experimental RFC) without option
>code is really useless, because it is unlikely that any verndor would
>implement it.
>As a side comment, currently assigning the option code for DHCPv6
>requires experts review. Let me cite the complete list: Ted Lemon. While
>Ted Lemon is certainly a DHCPv6 expert, the standardization process
>should not rely on a single person. If Ted becomes unavailable for
>whatever reason (e.g. wins a lottery and decides to retire tomorrow on
>his private island), we wouldn't get new DHCPv6 options any more.
>I suppose that is something that should be corrected one day, probably
>together with the registry name.