Re: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)

[Chuck Anderson <[e-mail]>]

I support keeping this document alive as Standards Track because it
offers a useful way to implement DHCPv6 Failover using a calculated
technique rather than state-sharing, and because I value the ability
for enterprises to correlate activities of a host within a single IPv6
link while still allowing for privacy and non-correlation across
different IPv6 links.

On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 05:25:42PM +0000, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> At the DHC WG session at IETF-93 (Prague), we had a discussion about next steps for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses. In particular, I (Bernie Volz) proposed we consider it a "dead WG" document (or possibly continue it as Informational). The consensus (hum) in the room was as follows:
> 
> -          Most felt (loudest hum) we should consider it a "dead WG" document.
> 
> -          A few (minor hum) were in favor of continuing work on it as an Information draft.
> 
> -          None (silent) were in favor of continuing work as is (standards track).
> I had also asked this question to the mailing list a while back, and there was some discussion though no conclusive action as only a few people voiced an opinion.
> 
> While we don't yet have official minutes for the meeting, you can view the Etherpad notes and audio track by visiting https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/93/ and scrolling down to the DHC session (on Thursday afternoon) and clicking the appropriate links.
> 
> The WG chairs are required to confirm any consensus obtained from a session on the WG mailing list and that is the purpose of this email.
> 
> Thus, if you do NOT agree with the intended action to mark the document as "dead", please indicate so and specify why you feel this document is needed and whether to continue as Standards Track or Informational. Please respond on or before August 11th, 2015.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> -          Bernie (& Tomek)