Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022

Hi:

This document has been adopted by the DHC WG.

The authors are requested to publish the draft-ietf-dhc-*-00 version.

Thanks,

Tim & Bernie

On Tue, Dec 20, 2022 at 9:54 AM rob@deepdivenetworklng.com <
rob@deepdivenetworking.com> wrote:

> All,
>
> Thank you for the patience. I was able to review it in its entirety today
> and * I support the adoption of the draft.*
>
> My only notes are trivial things like “In 7.7 is it worth mentioning that
> unlike v4, v6 does have the RECONFIGURE mechanism so this is not as
> dangerous as with V4 but still should be approached with caution”, I know
> we aren't focused on comparing and this is instead focused on DHCPv6 but
> for users it may be a nice to have... and only a few of those…
>
>
> Cheers and Happy Holidays,
>
> Rob
>
>
> Robert Nagy
> - - - - - - - - - -
> Senior Dive Master | Deep Dive Networking Inc
> p: 408.480.5133 | aim/icq: 95091173 | e:rob@deepdivenetworking.com
> www.deepdivenetworking.com
>
> On Dec 14, 2022, at 1:29 PM, Ian Farrer <ianfarrer@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Tim,
>
> I support the adoption of the draft.
>
> Once the 8415-bis process gets a bit further along, we’ll need to see if
> the DHCPv6 YANG modules need updating.
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
> On 2. Dec 2022, at 22:27, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
>
> Hi Bernie,
>
> I was thinking about this today as well, all the support for adoption came
> from the authors of the document.  Let's extend the adoption call until
> 12/14.
>
>  In the meeting room at IETF 114 there seemed to be general interest in
> this work, but we need confirmation on the list.
>
> Can others from the working group chime on the mailing list if they
> support this for an adoption call?
>
> ~Tim
>
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:13 PM Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> What’s the status of this adoption call?
>>
>> My guess is that it kind of failed as we had noone except myself comment
>> to the list? But perhaps I missed some?
>>
>> I do think we may need to consider adding an “Implementation Status”
>> section as recommended by https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content (this
>> would not end up in RFC).
>>
>> - Bernie Volz
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>>
>> Not sure how much it counts as I did many of the edits from RFC8415 for
>> this bis draft, but I strongly support adoption by the WG of this document.
>>
>> It would be great to get input from others on the changes as well as the
>> few areas I had pointed out when announcing publication if the draft to the
>> WG:
>>
>> A few areas to consider during your review:
>> - Should we reduce some of the background material, such as sections 1.1 and 1.2 and/or 3.
>> - Should we remove all text related to even checking for unicast transmissions and even deprecate the UseMulticast status code. I think the only case that can end up with unicast at a 8415bis server would be if the server had been sending Server-Unicast option and is then upgraded as existing (pre8415bis clients) may then unicast … but likely if the upgraded server just accepted the message, there would not really be any harm. A 8415bis client that always multicasts should never run into problems (and thus get the UseMulticast status). The 8415bis server would never need to check if unicast.
>> - The Acknowledgements section has XXX, as (your) names will be inserted here as work on the document continues.
>>
>> - Bernie Volz
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2022, at 4:50 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
>>
>> 
>> Hello:
>>
>> We would like initiating a WG call for adoption on
>> draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00
>> <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis>.
>> This document is an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification with
>> the intention of advancing to Internet standard.
>>
>> This starts the call for adoption of this document. Please respond by
>> November 18, 2022.
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or
>> should not adopt this document as a work item.
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Tim and Bernie
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>>
>> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>