Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 - Respond by August 9, 2013!

[Kim Kinnear <[e-mail]>]

Marcin, et. al.,

I have responded to Marcin's comments about sections 9.11 and 9.11.1
in his email of Aug 7, since the details all appeared in that email
thread.

My bottom line from that response was:
> 
> 	So, technically, I think the document is accurate and
> 	that there is no conflict in what is described.
> 
> 	That said, you obviously found it obscure enough to raise
> 	this issue, and when we revise the document the next
> 	time, I will add some words to Section 9.11 to try to
> 	clarify that we are motivating the existence of the
> 	RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED state, not describing how it
> 	operates.


Since this is a relatively minor clarification and not a change
to the document, I don't think any such clarification would
require a republication of the document and another last call (at
least on its own).

The changes I have in mind could be done during the RFC editor
processing, but I'm sure that won't be necessary.  We will certainly
have to make multiple revisions to this document to pass through
the IESG review process (assuming that we even get that far), and
I will make this change when we do those revisions.

If, as I said, we even pass through last call.

Regards -- Kim


On Aug 9, 2013, at 6:40 AM, Marcin Siodelski wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 19, 2013 at 3:59 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important!
> 
>  
> 
> This document is the 2nd series of documents related to DHCPv6 failover – the first is http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements which is currently being reviewed by the IESG for publication approval.
> 
>  
> 
> At the time of this writing, there is no IPR reported against this draft.
> 
>  
> 
> As Tomek is a co-author, I will primarily evaluate consensus after 2013-08-09 (August 9th). This is a 3 week last call because of the Berlin IETF meeting and also because of summer-time vacations (at least for those of us  in the northern hemisphere).
> 
> 
> I read the document from the top to the bottom and made extensive review. All valid issues I had pointed out were addressed in version -03. Other comments which were identified as non-issues were responded via email. One of the comments which I made was referring to the chapter 9.11. where I was unclear "whether servers are responsive or unresponsive to the clients when they are in the RESOLUTION-INTERRUPTED state" (see http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg14575.html). In the recent reply to this email thread I clarified the question as it had been unclear for the authors which part of text I had been referring to. This question may still need to be responded. I apologize for the late answer.
> 
> In general, very good work. I support advancing this document. 
> 
> Marcin
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg