[dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- needs your help

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Tue, 19 July 2016 18:52 UTC

Return-Path: <kkinnear@cisco.com>
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 C10E212D0A7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.808
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.808 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-1.287, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=cisco.com
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 gD7y4YwdxgyS for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from aer-iport-4.cisco.com (aer-iport-4.cisco.com [173.38.203.54]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9204812B010 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jul 2016 11:52:25 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1343; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1468954345; x=1470163945; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:subject:date:message-id: cc:to:mime-version; bh=6dkecXxoanRd/Q3iKaVDzav7lTXmynohgAfm4cHD22c=; b=GeEvPpVLUicqyo3XIyc3I1fu8HLJXbDE6TZhawzJm2JKjIGPZjSyPntu A51h+9GjlMoSdMQ15fHwm4gcf4Lq4GiU51Krcm60reOwtGUNrTWqvNLuk GDnwQ2E/FqKTaYOqtt9eNdCWIEWjsy7KovTktgV22GFvCiaxqN1xmEXk4 M=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.28,390,1464652800"; d="scan'208";a="638654692"
Received: from aer-iport-nat.cisco.com (HELO aer-core-3.cisco.com) ([173.38.203.22]) by aer-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 19 Jul 2016 18:52:23 +0000
Received: from dhcp-10-131-65-120.cisco.com (dhcp-10-131-65-120.cisco.com [10.131.65.120]) (authenticated bits=0) by aer-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id u6JIqMos028853 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:52:23 GMT
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 14:52:22 -0400
Message-Id: <790DE930-EE00-45C4-B325-D40AC4FDC2DB@cisco.com>
To: "<dhcwg@ietf.org>" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 9.2 \(3112\))
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3112)
X-Authenticated-User: kkinnear
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/TH33uXN63cNeK7Kfo2z3YF51178>
Cc: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Failover -- needs your help
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Tue, 19 Jul 2016 18:52:28 -0000

We have been working toward standardizing DHCPv6 Failover for several
years now.

We are almost there. There is a draft:

 <https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02>  https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-protocol-02

It has had three detailed technical reviews (which is, in my view,
enough -- though more would be wonderful).

But it went through DHC WG Last Call with nary a response.  Very
disappointing!

What it needs now is (in just my view) -- another WGLC and:

  Several (4-6) people to read the draft and say:

  "Yes, that looks good and we think it should progress."

  (or "need to fix this, and then it should progress", of course)

I'm *not* asking for a detailed technical review, with 3 pages of
changes/questions.  I *am* asking for people to read through and think
about it and see if it makes some sense to them, then respond to the
DHC WG mailing list.  Technical and editorial updates are certainly
welcome, but are not required.

We are not going to keep pushing this -- if people don't think it is
important, we will drop it.  There was once a set of people
interested, but perhaps they have moved on.

But -- let us see if we can push this one over the line in the next
month or so!  We are almost there!

Thanks much -- Kim