Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

Ian:

Regarding your #1 comment, yes that is the case and has been for a while. While it could be stated, I think leaving it a bit more open. #2 in the main objectives is a bit more general (though 7227 is about v6 options). I will leave it to others to comment whether this needs any change.

I can modify per your #2 comment (with slight edit to be clearer – I hope).

Hopefully we can wrap up and send to Suresh shortly!

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. The WG
plans to advance the DHCPv6 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: Ian Farrer [mailto:ianfarrer@gmx.com]
Sent: Friday, January 12, 2018 6:36 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

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 WGs or 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