Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Respond by Dec 18

["Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]>]

Kim & DHC WG ...

I excluded Dushyant, Darpan, and Deepak (they aren't authors of the dhcpv4 work, but of the dhcpv6 - except for Darpan but he works with us at Cisco - and I didn't feel that this longer answer was required but I guess I should have include it). They are certainly all valid opinions, but there is some "conflict of interest".

I did miss Sheng's response - not sure why I missed it when I had Outlook search for the draft name in DHC WG email.

In the future I should avoid putting counts in as "rough consensus" is not about "counting votes". And should just state that we are interesting in getting 'more' opinions.

Anyway, let's see what happens ... as I'm leaving the decision up to Tomek (and he should do his own analysis) and we'll see if there is any more interest expressed.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) 
Sent: Thursday, December 19, 2013 10:32 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Respond by Dec 18


Bernie,

I'm confused.  I count responses from 6 non-authors on this work:

Ted Lemon 		12/9/13 4:59pm
Sheng Jiang 		12/10/13 1:13pm
Mathias Samelson 	12/10/13 4:56pm
Dushyant Raghuvanshi 	12/9/13 11:29pm
Darpan Malhotra 	12/12/13 1:31pm
Deepak Kukrety 		12/9/13 11:45pm

Now, my mail reader didn't gather all of these together for me easily, and I don't know why.  But I do see them in my email.  The times above are the times in my email reader (EST), for reference.

I'm not saying that we need to adopt this or not, but it seems to me that we should be counting the folks that responded.

Thanks -- Kim


On Dec 19, 2013, at 9:59 AM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While we are now technically past the respond by date, I will make one last plea for comments regarding adopting this as a WG item.
> 
> We did receive responses from two non-authors, but I don't really feel that is strong enough to consider adopting this. No one objected, so that does weigh in favor of adopting it.
> 
> Because I am a co-author, I will leave it for Tomek to decide whether this document should be adopted. I will ask him to hold off announcing results until Monday, December 23 (so send your response by Sunday).
> 
> Again, if you haven't responded and have a few minutes, please consider whether the WG should adopt or not. We did adopt the DHCPv6 version of this work, so it would not be a stretch to adopt for DHCPv4 as the motivation is identical.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz 
> (volz)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:47 AM
> To: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); [e-mail]
> Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call 
> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Respond by Dec 18
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> This is a WG Call for Adoption for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02. This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt this work as DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on December 18, 2013.
> 
> This call is being initiated because during the call for adoption for draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00, which was just adopted, several people asked about the related DHCPv4 work. Kim republished the DHCPv4 draft (with minor updates) as it had expired a while ago. So, we are seeking input as to whether the WG should now also work on the DHCPv4 version of active leasequery, given that the DHCPv6 version was adopted.
> 
> Regards,
> Tomek & Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:25 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); Bernie Volz (volz); Tomek Mrugalski
> Subject: New Version Notification for 
> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> During the adoption discussion about DHCPv6 Active Leasequery there was some discussion about having a corresponding DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability.  If there is sufficient interest in a DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability to parallel the DHCPv6 capability that was adopted as a DHC WG work item recently, then we can decide whether or not we want to have two drafts moving toward two RFC's, or combine them into one draft.
> 
> But the first question is whether or not there is sufficient interest in having a DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability at all!
> 
> In order to help decide this question, I have updated the existing
> DHCPv4 Active Leasequery draft from a couple of years ago, and resubmitted it as an individual submission -- as recommended by Bernie and Tomek.
> 
> Below you can find the information on how to find this new draft.
> 
> Regards -- Kim
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> Date: December 4, 2013 10:01:03 AM EST
>> To: Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>, Mark Stapp <[e-mail]>, Kim 
>> Kinnear <[e-mail]>, Neil Russell <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D,
>> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Kim Kinnear and posted to the IETF 
>> repository.
>> 
>> Filename:	 draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery
>> Revision:	 02
>> Title:		 Active DHCPv4 Lease Query
>> Creation date:	 2013-12-04
>> Group:		 Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 22
>> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery
>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02
>> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>  The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) has been  
>> extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a client to request  
>> information about DHCPv4 bindings.  That mechanism is limited to  
>> queries for individual bindings.  In some situations individual  
>> binding queries may not be efficient, or even possible.  In addition,  
>> continuous update of an external client with Leasequery data is  
>> sometimes desired. This document expands on the DHCPv4 Leasequery  
>> protocol, and allows for active transfer of near real-time DHCPv4  
>> address binding information data via TCP.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg