Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net> Sun, 14 January 2018 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4250C12D77E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:49:28 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.989
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.989 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_NONE=-0.0001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=pacbell.net
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id E-T25OGYX4aC for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:49:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sonic303-26.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (sonic303-26.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com [98.137.64.207]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F17731267BB for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:49:22 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=pacbell.net; s=s2048; t=1515966562; bh=H1ry/XEZuO/kcX23XD9P+mCEzCF6lYyQSC6iYeoGJ/M=; h=Reply-To:Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From:Subject; b=OU9t6itUKVdwvA4BtkV66lnZu4f2uerY0Jn1umZ7fmugx4TxMys+lOYaDGbaPIqgMRk4wkTu81tUuVWVdyMU9BIZn6huwYZ2TilhhtgSOsLdMg4tQEaQ1fmv0Q8J2XXTTGNbCnofvkH2jsqcB79lMnTzIYmQDxcz5cHqs0T+TWpp5Z6IXHGZPL3NoOe9JDlUESyIauIQSD2RntXiv/E16l0ext8FUrWUK4RxKzizDXocCqnK082i25Ull0q1Y5xn/HJSle68TY/A69dYTV39/fjq6VWhiwv54o2iC09YMCHpt/qiztHpm7p+XPJRj+Lme3FmgS7UUJOveOdBTfJEcA==
X-YMail-OSG: Jht8kSYVM1lHWelqCsFQ7mwI4s.GPvk43nIiMuVTxZ7bHXK2LQhL5in.sTAAnHZ s0VZaP3F.M11jay94ijb0dWLN617Z.G32ehDD6T0Lr2qlb9loWdW45FQfHIP6xsljriSa7b2dZaI JLFoKP8XJJledBavIkcNwpNR2dYYrk0BBjEAa9bdPdqBp2pF7aFYtKE6B8KebaM08qwtOtGefePz Z_XsYPrSrwo9HU1yklP6qOjJnHy_r.xPeOzMwSWaN4i3PxTLMBjF5pEjuYWmKJBERs_nL6YMlYC3 kEXA1ESzh4UO5iJ4AHAjeub.l10Q1Kga4iSTq_bhsZwekVmqnbDZrEGfVKA4VMuKXPw5UJKYHUXq 3bxfRa50Nd9wLBhS34YiXY_43QBLl_xdKulOOBHDznbyp33Jr4qNV1du1jYnRjit7QJmIEv1WHfp lLp5HTpv8LhmiAxFgsem87g0ymmHQBjNNVqC7cZTbZ99Zf0hmiDhdVkkTsLDDmDYsRUgIkbyGOb. 94DH_gpIG8SET
Received: from sonic.gate.mail.ne1.yahoo.com by sonic303.consmr.mail.gq1.yahoo.com with HTTP; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:49:22 +0000
Received: from smtp103.sbc.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (EHLO [192.168.1.2]) ([67.195.15.62]) by smtp411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com (JAMES SMTP Server ) with ESMTPA ID 9b1392e1344fc1bab083c0733a76d7fa for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:49:20 +0000 (UTC)
Reply-To: rbhibbs@ranchoSanchez.net
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
References: <c75fcb03185b49bab003dfa5e6a8f795@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <0fd9d640-55d0-d7a2-eb06-a6de681b5491@gmail.com> <76942a0f18d24473a8fe54be29f4b4b8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <C804CF0C-1826-41BC-8BAA-4B57F63834B9@fugue.com> <ffa2ac46b00b4f12a89c8e14656502c8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <D463E9C1-F0B8-4F0F-B6D6-3D08CC3A3934@fugue.com> <e7925ca38e954eca9ad7ea6924b6da01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <8D440DD0-06BA-45F3-A919-E1CCC0C18206@fugue.com> <d178085afc214003aaaa673571749781@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <3CA73EDB-4D04-4DCA-810D-1EB363236654@gmx.com>
From: Richard Barr Hibbs <rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
Message-ID: <e563d79c-ab19-f138-9f3e-7e4731f7eb9c@pacbell.net>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 13:49:18 -0800
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.5.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <3CA73EDB-4D04-4DCA-810D-1EB363236654@gmx.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pkcs7-signature"; micalg="sha-256"; boundary="------------ms000509090907030801030408"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/RcCzwzTinlTPXZLWIuyPlPhgXgE>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2018 21:49:28 -0000

I agree that the proposed changes make the proposed charter clearer.

--Barr


On 1/12/2018 3:36 AM, Ian Farrer wrote:
> Hi Bernie,
>
> I think the new wording looks generally fine, with the following 2 
> comments:
>
> 1, The first two paragraphs are relevant to both DHCPv4 & 6, but the 
> objectives are all DHCPv6 specific. Whilst I agree that DHCPv6 should 
> be very much the focus of the WG, I wouldn’t like to see it preclude 
> e.g. reviving the DHCPv4 yang model draft 
> (draft-liu-dhc-dhcp-yang-model). I guess this can be handled by DHCPv4 
> work not being a 'main objective'. Is this the right understanding? 
> Should there be text to reflect this?
>
> 2, Para. 1: "DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being 
> updated and the WG plans to advance the protocol to full standard."
>
> This sentence is a little cumbersome. A suggested re-word:
>
> "DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard that is being updated. The WG 
> plans to advance the protocol to full standard.”
>
> Thanks,
> Ian
>
>
>> On 10. Jan 2018, at 23:43, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>> Hi:
>> OK, dropped #3 (while it is standard practice, it might not always be 
>> obvious to all so I thought it was useful) and added the “or 
>> sponsored by an appropriate AD”.
>> So, I think we are now with the following proposed re-charter text:
>> The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
>> for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
>> IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other 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 or sponsored by an
>> appropriate AD 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.
>> The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
>> 1. Informational documents providing operational or implementation advice
>> about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for
>> operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients, and relay
>> agents.
>> 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. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
>> an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
>> -Bernie
>> *From:*Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com]
>> *Sent:*Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:32 PM
>> *To:*Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>>
>> *Cc:*Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>>; dhcwg@ietf.org 
>> <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
>> *Subject:*Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
>> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com 
>> <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     OK, that leaves us saying nothing about this particular issue and
>>     it will still be up to Suresh (or the then current AD) to deal
>>     with new options work that wasn’t done elsewhere. But I guess
>>     that isn’t “in our charter” to resolve. Though we could work in
>>     the following minor change if we wanted to attempt to at least
>>     capture the spirit - “within their respective WGsor sponsored by
>>     an appropriate AD”.
>>
>> Yup.
>> I think you could really just delete point 3—it's just repeating 
>> things that are standard practice.
>> _______________________________________________
>> dhcwg mailing list
>> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg