RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Sat, 15 June 2002 00:29 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA20002 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:29:10 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id UAA16788 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:29:47 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA16698; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:27:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id UAA16667 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:27:52 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (mta6.snfc21.pbi.net [206.13.28.240]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id UAA19939 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 20:27:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from BarrH63p601 ([64.169.90.244]) by mta6.snfc21.pbi.net (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.1 (built May 7 2001)) with SMTP id <0GXQ005B41AC9T@mta6.snfc21.pbi.net> for dhcwg@ietf.org; Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:27:49 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Fri, 14 Jun 2002 17:27:32 -0700
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] DHC WG charter
In-reply-to: <A16BB1BC-7FE5-11D6-9A23-00039367340A@nominum.com>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Reply-to: rbhibbs@pacbell.net
Message-id: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNOEOKDNAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
MIME-version: 1.0
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2600.0000
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2911.0)
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Importance: Normal
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-priority: Normal
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7BIT

> If it is necessary for the wg to encourage multiple interoperable
> implementations and interoperability testing, then perhaps that's
> a signal that the protocol spec isn't ready to advance.   My
> experience is that if people want the protocol, they will implement
> it and do interoperability testing with no outside encouragement.
>
...now my biases are showing....  after my experience with "stealth"
implementations of private MIBs for DHCP and DNS servers, I'm not so sure
that a bit of encouragement isn't needed....  although I agree that if a
protocol spec is thought to be useful, implementations and interoperability
testing will occur.

--Barr


_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg