Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022

["[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>]

All,

Thank you for the patience. I was able to review it in its entirety today and  I support the adoption of the draft.

My only notes are trivial things like “In 7.7 is it worth mentioning that unlike v4, v6 does have the RECONFIGURE mechanism so this is not as dangerous as with V4 but still should be approached with caution”, I know we aren't focused on comparing and this is instead focused on DHCPv6 but for users it may be a nice to have... and only a few of those…


Cheers and Happy Holidays,

Rob


Robert Nagy
- - - - - - - - - -
Senior Dive Master | Deep Dive Networking Inc
p: 408.480.5133 | aim/icq: 95091173 | e:[e-mail]
www.deepdivenetworking.com

> On Dec 14, 2022, at 1:29 PM, Ian Farrer <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Hi Tim,
> 
> I support the adoption of the draft.
> 
> Once the 8415-bis process gets a bit further along, we’ll need to see if the DHCPv6 YANG modules need updating.
> 
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
>> On 2. Dec 2022, at 22:27, Timothy Winters <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi Bernie,
>> 
>> I was thinking about this today as well, all the support for adoption came from the authors of the document.  Let's extend the adoption call until 12/14. 
>> 
>>  In the meeting room at IETF 114 there seemed to be general interest in this work, but we need confirmation on the list. 
>> 
>> Can others from the working group chime on the mailing list if they support this for an adoption call?
>> 
>> ~Tim
>> 
>> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:13 PM Bernie Volz <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>> What’s the status of this adoption call?
>> 
>> My guess is that it kind of failed as we had noone except myself comment to the list? But perhaps I missed some?
>> 
>> I do think we may need to consider adding an “Implementation Status” section as recommended by https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content <https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content> (this would not end up in RFC).
>> 
>> - Bernie Volz
>> 
>>> On Nov 2, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Bernie Volz <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hi:
>>> 
>>> Not sure how much it counts as I did many of the edits from RFC8415 for this bis draft, but I strongly support adoption by the WG of this document.
>>> 
>>> It would be great to get input from others on the changes as well as the few areas I had pointed out when announcing publication if the draft to the WG:
>>> 
>>>> A few areas to consider during your review:
>>>> - Should we reduce some of the background material, such as sections 1.1 and 1.2 and/or 3.
>>>> - Should we remove all text related to even checking for unicast transmissions and even deprecate the UseMulticast status code. I think the only case that can end up with unicast at a 8415bis server would be if the server had been sending Server-Unicast option and is then upgraded as existing (pre8415bis clients) may then unicast … but likely if the upgraded server just accepted the message, there would not really be any harm. A 8415bis client that always multicasts should never run into problems (and thus get the UseMulticast status). The 8415bis server would never need to check if unicast.
>>>> - The Acknowledgements section has XXX, as (your) names will be inserted here as work on the document continues.
>>> 
>>> - Bernie Volz
>>>> On Oct 20, 2022, at 4:50 AM, Timothy Winters <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> Hello:
>>>> 
>>>> We would like initiating a WG call for adoption on draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis>.  This document is an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification with the intention of advancing to Internet standard.
>>>> 
>>>> This starts the call for adoption of this document. Please respond by November 18, 2022.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or should not adopt this document as a work item.
>>>> 
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Tim and Bernie
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg