Re: [dhcwg] IETF-106 DHC WG Draft Minutes

Hi Bernie,

Yes, that was a mistake arising from adapting the text from RFC7084 to the newer requirements boilerplate. I’ll fix it depending on which track we go for.

My preference would be to have RFC2119 language. This makes for much simpler discussions with vendors about whether their implementation is compliant or not. As to whether this mean that we need to go for Standards track or not, I don’t know. There are a number of Informational requirements type RFCs that do this (e.g. RFC85885 was published back in May), but I wasn’t involved in the IESG discussions about these. Any guidance here would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 2. Dec 2019, at 17:12, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Ian and thanks for the feedback!
>  
> >1 question regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang - Do we know who volunteered to review?
>  
> No, sorry I don’t recall who it was and we didn’t ask. Perhaps whoever did volunteer will let us know. And, it really would be best to get even more to volunteer!!
>  
> >1 comment regarding draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - For the point about the use of RFC2119 language, I noted during that Suresh advised putting the draft back to standards track to solve this, but this is not recorded in the minutes.
>  
> OK, I can update the minutes. Though another solution would be to keep it Informational but remove 2119 language. I’m not sure why it has been the case, but many of these kinds of documents seem to be Informational instead of Standards Track.
>  
> And, I though you indicated you were following RFC7084 and the slides indicate this:
> Follows the RFC7084 approach of an Informational document with RFC2119 requirements language (changed in -v02)
> but that is not the case. RFC7084 says:
>  
>    Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
>    "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
>    "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
>    described in RFC 2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> [RFC2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>].  This document uses these keywords
>    not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
>    purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality.  As
>    such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable
>    in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers
>    regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a
>    successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a
>    particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6
>    access networks.
>  
> Note the “are not used as described in RFC 2119”. Whereas your document has:
>  
>    The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
>    "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and
>    "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>
>    14 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14> [RFC2119 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>] [RFC8174 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174>] when, and only when, they appear in all
>    capitals, as shown here.  This document uses these keywords not
>    strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
>    purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality.  As
>    such, the document points to several other specifications (preferably
>    in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers
>    regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a DHCP
>    relaying router that functions successfully with prefix delegation.
>  
> Though not really sure it makes a difference as it appears that the RFC7084 usage is frowned upon.
> Bernie
> From: ianfarrer@gmx.com <mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com> <ianfarrer@gmx.com <mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com>> 
> Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:55 AM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>>
> Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-106 DHC WG Draft Minutes
>  
> Hi Bernie,
>  
> Thanks for posting them. A couple of comments:
>  
> 1 question regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang - Do we know who volunteered to review?
>  
> 1 comment regarding draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - For the point about the use of RFC2119 language, I noted during that Suresh advised putting the draft back to standards track to solve this, but this is not recorded in the minutes.
>  
> Thanks,
> Ian
> 
> 
> On 2. Dec 2019, at 16:13, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
>  
> Hi:
>  
> I have published DRAFT minutes for the IETF-106 DHC WG session – seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-dhc-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-dhc-00>.
>  
> They have been reviewed by your co-chairs, but we welcome corrections or other changes.
>  
> Bernie & Tomek
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>