Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31

Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com> Fri, 31 January 2014 14:13 UTC

Return-Path: <gnocuil@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D084A1A1F54 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:13:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.451
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.451 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
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 7BF2ucBbqq_z for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qc0-x22c.google.com (mail-qc0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c01::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B89471A0193 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qc0-f172.google.com with SMTP id c9so7166017qcz.31 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:55 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=c3fd5nejj0N90esdN4jSBMMeEkTSMmOih8JevJqtloI=; b=nd0yMqs4EQl9HdXvidV9zzOs5pMgOW+HzxwF9hZKJdvB22sPpjPWh9qhP0KOy9CLHA gMWos0KTbrQvMaeWTiVI5gD8fCECJFYvLnQ04ySbGn8i0V42zyTxW6dh8sRqEKXNa0sE jw2CPG7vQjLpPm2yUoi8HeBlW/OlKQGlFJxDW+Ng4wNoeCjRJO6g80T/uO3OZj4/YNeh hvgGslEo0l4z8cpvyqKV3MOpyz6H8hclXwGxC6U0yMrkXQJoNoNtlj1jWH18IGxqhv/N 9DJqbVwKVl3pXqY/imzeJxQLKpFrblhZPfHgSQ8bABCpoZgwWSEoReL5yV5HyqmazgPF CDsQ==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.140.27.179 with SMTP id 48mr29881738qgx.18.1391177574550; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.218.104 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.96.218.104 with HTTP; Fri, 31 Jan 2014 06:12:54 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com>
References: <52D87808.8040107@gmail.com> <52D9A59D.4080100@gmail.com> <9CA18722-D532-47DF-A88E-496ABF41E1A8@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 22:12:54 +0800
Message-ID: <CAF+sHxExwybpj1y9_VdkRajLr9iVJzwTiJxNvay3w+5zH2GAhQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cong Liu <gnocuil@gmail.com>
To: Qi Sun <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c004342692c504f144c53f
Cc: DHC WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04 - respond by Jan. 31
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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: Fri, 31 Jan 2014 14:13:01 -0000

+1 support.

Cong
2014年1月31日 下午8:48于 "Qi Sun" <sunqi.csnet.thu@gmail.com>写道:

>
> Dear all,
>
> I support this document to move forward.
>
>
> Best Regards,
> Qi
>
>
> On 2014-1-18, at 上午5:50, Tomek Mrugalski wrote:
>
> > Folks,
> >
> > Authors and chairs feel that draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration-04
> > (http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dhc-v4configuration/) is
> > ready for WGLC. Please post your comment by end of January.
> >
> > If you support this draft moving forward, please say so. If you object
> > this draft moving forward, please explain your concerns. Please limit
> > your posts to technical comments and skip your personal preferences. "I
> > like the other solution better" is not a technical comment.
> >
> > Please note that:
> > - Softwires WG is expecting an answer from DHC WG on how to configure
> > IPv4 devices in IPv6-only networks. We should answer that question.
> >
> > - There is a temptation to sneak in certain A+P pieces here. We must not
> > do that. This is related, but a different problem. Let's solve one issue
> > at a time.
> >
> > - -04 features an update that is a result of some off the list
> > discussions. In essence, the addition is "if possible, use native DHCPv4
> > without modifications. If not, here's what DHC recommends:
> > DHCPv4-over-DHCPv6".
> >
> > With my DHC chair hat off, I'd like to ask you to do your best to not
> > reopen the discussion of solution X being marginally better over Y in
> > scenario Z. Yes, we can keep coming up with new metrics that would prove
> > whatever metric inventor wants to prove. But that will lead us nowhere.
> > There is probably no single solution that will be the best in every
> > possible deployment scenario. We discussed that for over a year (much
> > more if you take into account Softwire discussions). It's a high time to
> > wrap things up here and move on.
> >
> > Bernie & Tomek
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>