RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt
"Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se> Tue, 31 December 2002 13:39 UTC
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23337 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:39:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBVDkZ122486 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:46:35 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBVDkZJ22482 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:46:35 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23327 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:38:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBVDi5J22355; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:44:05 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBVDg7J22322 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:42:07 -0500
Received: from imr2.ericy.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id IAA23195 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 08:34:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mr5.exu.ericsson.se (mr5att.ericy.com [138.85.224.141]) by imr2.ericy.com (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBVDbOW14482; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:37:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: from eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se (eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se [138.85.133.39]) by mr5.exu.ericsson.se (8.11.3/8.11.3) with ESMTP id gBVDbO514386; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:37:24 -0600 (CST)
Received: by eamrcnt761.exu.ericsson.se with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59) id <W7X7TYTF>; Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:37:24 -0600
Message-ID: <A1DDC8E21094D511821C00805F6F706B05552B70@eamrcnt715.exu.ericsson.se>
From: "Bernie Volz (EUD)" <Bernie.Volz@am1.ericsson.se>
To: 'Paul Duffy' <paduffy@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
Cc: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt
Date: Tue, 31 Dec 2002 07:36:00 -0600
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2656.59)
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C2B0D1.3140D5C2"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
I think what this means is that instead of having IANA assign and register, IANA would only register. So, when the draft enters the RFC-Editor queue, IANA is contacted as it normally is and IANA would contact CableLabs which would assign the suboption. IANA then registers it. Is that correct? Seems OK by me if IANA is willing. This means CableLabs can start using the suboption as soon as the draft enters the RFC-Editor queue instead of having to await actual publication of the RFC. - Bernie -----Original Message----- From: Paul Duffy [mailto:paduffy@cisco.com] Sent: Monday, December 30, 2002 11:27 PM To: Ted Lemon Cc: Ralph Droms; Thomas Narten; dhcwg@ietf.org Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt At 06:45 PM 12/30/2002 -0500, Ted Lemon wrote: >>Future proposed sub-options will be assigned a numeric code chosen by >>CableLabs immediately following IESG approval of the draft. > >What does "IETF approval of the draft" mean? If it means that the draft >has been adopted by the WG, sounds fine, but if it means that the draft >has passed the IESG review, then what's the point of the expert review? > Hi Ted, The point I am trying to get across is that the DHC WG, ADs, IESG, etc. approve the technical content/semantics of the sub-option, then Cablelabs would assign the sub-option code. I'm trying to balance CableLab's need for speed with IETF's review of the content of the sub-option. The expert review would be only for the choice of sub-option code assignment(?), not the actual technical content of the draft. So the order of events would be: 1. CCC sub-option draft submitted to DHC WG. 2. DHC WG, AD, IESG review/approve sub-option format and content. 3. Cablelabs assigns sub-option code. 4. IETF expert reviewer approves code assignment. 5a. Cablelabs compliant vendors start implementing sub-option for testing and shipment to customer. 5b. Draft is simultaneously submitted to RFC editor Q. If all goes well, field shipments can commence just about the time the RFC exits the editor Q. I'm grasping for a compromise here. Any suggestions? Cheers, -- Paul Duffy Cisco Systems, Inc. paduffy@cisco.com _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Paul Duffy
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Bernie Volz (EUD)
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Paul Duffy
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt Thomas Narten