Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Wed, 06 December 2017 02:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB1791242F5 for <>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:45:10 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.52
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.52 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id gEAzFlTAKWRm for <>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:45:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6E92E120725 for <>; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 18:45:08 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=16578; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1512528308; x=1513737908; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:references: in-reply-to:mime-version; bh=v/D/NWaEspud+x/S+tWp1XpmYzBKy47XY5zU63KGkXE=; b=YjG6o3ts4hz7SEePKbdfBveNGR5Iu6XD+A+f+87RP6+bIaE+dMJE4NFj h6wk8e8X2/3vRZun37hK2YAfml10TeX15TD9/3ZDg6yS744QtKwURD4U3 i7u8/3DyqvnG4DxgVX1hnAVK4X8tsCF6E6R0iYlELmK9ebhqNIcqs8aR8 A=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.45,366,1508803200"; d="scan'208,217";a="328979782"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 06 Dec 2017 02:45:06 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id vB62j6nu016083 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 6 Dec 2017 02:45:06 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1320.4; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:45:05 -0600
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1320.000; Tue, 5 Dec 2017 20:45:05 -0600
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: "" <>
Thread-Topic: Draft for Re-chartering
Thread-Index: AdNnKHnFDJ0pfbDmQeqJKheqkwE8GAHE0wmA
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2017 02:45:05 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_ac68cf63bbcf444493d3af4291b98591XCHALN003ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Dec 2017 02:45:11 -0000


There have been no comments pro or con ...

If we don't hear something in about a week, we'll request a re-charter with the version below.

-          Tomek & Bernie

From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2017 9:36 PM
Subject: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering


At IETF-100 in Singapore we discussed re-chartering the WG (see There were a few minor comments regarding that proposed text and a revised text based on those comments is below.

Please comment on suggested changes/improvements.

Begin Re-charter Text -->
The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses
and TCP/IP protocol stack parameters. DHCPv4 is currently a Draft
Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132. DHCPv6 is currently
a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG plans to advance the
protocol to full standard.

The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions.
Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard
mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol
extension and thus are generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
options should be defined within their respective WGs and reviewed by
DHCP experts in the Internet Area Directorate. However, if such options
require protocol extensions or new semantics, the protocol extension
work must be done in the DHC WG. Or, when no respective WG exists, the
DHC WG may take on the option definitions work with approval from the
responsible Area Director.

The DHC WG has the following main objectives:

1. Develop documents that help explain operational considerations for
the wider community if and as needed.

2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
(that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
considerations are properly documented.

3. Additional topics and any option definition work may only be added
with approval from the responsible Area Director or by re-chartering.

4. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
<-- End Re-charter Text

-          Tomek & Bernie