RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Fri, 20 December 2002 23:44 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 SAA15541 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:44:43 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBKNlgZ18055 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:47:42 -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 gBKNlgv18052 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:47:42 -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 SAA15537 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:44:12 -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 gBKNikv17997; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:44:47 -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 gBKNhav17962 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:43:36 -0500
Received: from snowmass.tci.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA15370 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 18:40:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mms01-relayb.tci.com (mms01-relayb.broadband.att.com [147.191.90.1]) by snowmass.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBKNgvvY028808; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:42:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 147.191.90.10 by mms01-relaya.tci.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:42:47 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 90826C58-91B0-45EB-95A5-46B6D42E456F
Received: by entexchimc03.broadband.att.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <ZDJ1N9YT>; Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:41:59 -0700
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBD00A@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: 'Paul Duffy' <paduffy@cisco.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2002 16:42:41 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 121D757D330895-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Folks, >Is the intent here that IETF wants to insure the sub-option number DOES >change (from experimental to official) when a CCC sub-option draft reaches >RFC? Forcing a change in the implementations? If that is the case, then >this discussion is over and Cablelabs will need to agree to your proposal. I wish there was a way to balance IETF's needs to review new suboptions, and CableLabs needs to define new suboptions in a timely fashion. I appreciate the fact that the IETF process allowed the CCC option draft to be cleaned up in many respects (e.g. removing unneeded port numbers, using DHCP option concatenation). At the same time, the IETF process has been relatively slow, compared to CableLabs timelines. Obviously a major part of the problem has been the way the draft was managed -- started in March 2000, suffered long time gaps between drafts, and allowed to expire. But the draft has been fairly actively managed since August 2002 by its two co-authors (one might disagree with their positions, but they have tried to be responsive). If the IESG were to approve the draft in January 2003 and the RFC editor were to publish in March 2003 (being only a little optimistic), that's still seven months since active management -- that's not including the original write-up time. I wonder whether a new suboption could be realistically documented, approved, and published using the standard IETF process within six months. The comparison would be to the CableLabs Change Control process (e.g. ECR/ECO/ECN), in which a change request is typically reviewed and approved by vendors and operators in a 30-day window. The vendors are motivated to review such changes in a timely fashion because it immediately impacts the requirements on products that they produce. However, the CableLabs vendor/operator community often does not have the same technical experience as the IETF audience. The ECx timeframe doesn't sound realistic in an IETF setting, and in fact might be a non-goal. One very messy way to balance between the polar extremes would be that CableLabs throws new experimental suboptions into its non-IETF-endorsed option 177, which suboptions might be ignored or redefined in IETF-endorsed CCC option. But the result is that PacketCable devices and DHCP servers that were serious about the cable market (because they worry about backward compatibility with now-obsolete CableLabs suboptions) would need to implement both option/suboption codes forever. I think we would suffer the same results if some of the CCC suboption space was dedicated to CableLabs-experimental use. Can someone propose something better? -- Rich _______________________________________________ dhcwg mailing list dhcwg@ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Thomas Narten
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ralph Droms
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Ted Lemon
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Woundy, Richard
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Jean-Francois Mule
- RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt Jean-Francois Mule
- Re: [dhcwg] draft-narten-iana-experimental-alloca… Thomas Narten