Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE

Kim Kinnear <> Wed, 07 September 2016 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5803C12B2C7 for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:47:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -16.03
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-16.03 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.508, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, 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 N-TpZy5KmQgA for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:47:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0254812B26E for <>; Wed, 7 Sep 2016 11:47:39 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=1961; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1473274060; x=1474483660; h=mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=wWdOL18moOAB7QTsjY2rGf8hAuqASF0/6Fs84JCsGGA=; b=OEThTFjxhgJ5ATdKf5l0fU2IGodD0WLka68c34vK+HTAC3K7jWk5YhAW blrTvh4VS4eKW0QZl+sl6MThpV54NiM1+XEALsOpQrB3FWGLm6PcQAIRj GwMqed7qK2vncmC7joR3if7wxayNZRKa81uKeJ5pB5mHeBze2b8bjr9sQ M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.30,296,1470700800"; d="scan'208";a="320752580"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 07 Sep 2016 18:47:39 +0000
Received: from ( []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u87IlcT5003192 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 7 Sep 2016 18:47:39 GMT
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
From: Kim Kinnear <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 14:47:38 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Authenticated-User: kkinnear
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "<>" <>, 神明達哉 <>, Kim Kinnear <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- LAST CHANCE
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 07 Sep 2016 18:47:41 -0000


I don't have any idea *how many* detailed reviews are necessary to
move a draft forward, since there isn't any fixed number of which I am

I would *love* more serious, detailed reviews.  Do we have to have
more to move it forward?  I don't know for sure, since I'm not the
person making the call to move it forward. 

I *do* know that on the prior WGLC, we had *only* serious, detailed
(i.e., many pages of comments) technical reviews.  We had few (if I
recall correctly, none) of the "I read it and I think this is
important" responses.

While I am not the decision maker, my experience from working with at
least the DHC WG over the years is that to move a draft through WGLC,
one needs to have several really detailed technical reviews, and one
*also* has to have a enough people say that this work is not only
important but largely correct.  There is always a range of "depth" of

I was in no way saying that people shouldn't review it in detail.  I
was saying that it looked to me like that thing that we were lacking
before was the general groundswell of opinion that this was worthy
work to spend time on and that it was generally correct.

If you (any of you) would be willing to do a detailed review -- of any
level -- have at it!  That would be great!!!

That said, we *also* need people to do whatever level of review they
can do and to say that they have done that and that they think this
draft is worthwhile and even important to push to an RFC.

We have had a few folks chime in and say this, and I want to thank
everyone who has read the draft and responded.  Have *enough* people
done that now for it to pass WGLC?  I doubt it -- I think we still
have a good ways to go.  But that is just my guess.

Thanks - Kim

> On Sep 7, 2016, at 2:26 PM, Ted Lemon <> wrote:
> Kim specifically stated that it had had enough detailed review at this point.