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
- [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Tomek Mrugalski
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering kkinnear
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Ted Lemon
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Timothy Winters
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Ian Farrer
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Richard Barr Hibbs
- Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering Bernie Volz (volz)