IETF Logo Mail Archive

RE: [dhcwg] Second dhc wg last call on "Time Protocol Servers andTime Offset Options for IPv6 DHCP"

"Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 07 June 2006 21:07 UTC

Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fo5Fd-0002N3-E3; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:07:41 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fo5Fb-0002Ms-LG for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 17:07:39 -0400
Received: from stsc1260-eth-s1-s1p1-vip.va.neustar.com ([156.154.16.129] helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fo4XW-0004qZ-Ft for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:22:06 -0400
Received: from sj-iport-4.cisco.com ([171.68.10.86]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Fo4Kk-0006Op-CD for dhcwg@ietf.org; Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:08:55 -0400
Received: from sj-dkim-8.cisco.com ([171.68.10.93]) by sj-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 07 Jun 2006 13:08:53 -0700
X-IronPort-AV: i="4.05,217,1146466800"; d="scan'208"; a="1821405551:sNHT480687936"
Received: from sj-core-4.cisco.com (sj-core-4.cisco.com [171.68.223.138]) by sj-dkim-8.cisco.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id k57K8rs6010916; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:08:53 -0700
Received: from xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com (xbh-rtp-211.cisco.com [64.102.31.102]) by sj-core-4.cisco.com (8.12.10/8.12.6) with ESMTP id k57K8icd008528; Wed, 7 Jun 2006 13:08:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com ([64.102.31.15]) by xbh-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.211); Wed, 7 Jun 2006 16:08:46 -0400
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5
Content-class: urn:content-classes:message
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Second dhc wg last call on "Time Protocol Servers andTime Offset Options for IPv6 DHCP"
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 2006 16:08:45 -0400
Message-ID: <8E296595B6471A4689555D5D725EBB2101B7F93D@xmb-rtp-20a.amer.cisco.com>
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Second dhc wg last call on "Time Protocol Servers andTime Offset Options for IPv6 DHCP"
Thread-Index: AcaKbWF9UNMeh7AsR7u0vkDGcnbnrAAAChVw
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 07 Jun 2006 20:08:46.0992 (UTC) FILETIME=[2F38B900:01C68A6E]
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; l=2142; t=1149710933; x=1150574933; c=relaxed/simple; s=sjdkim8001; h=Content-Type:From:Subject:Content-Transfer-Encoding:MIME-Version; d=cisco.com; i=volz@cisco.com; z=From:=22Bernie=20Volz=20\(volz\)=22=20<volz@cisco.com> |Subject:RE=3A=20[dhcwg]=20Second=20dhc=20wg=20last=20call=20on=20=22Time=20Proto col=20Servers=20andTime=20Offset=20Options=20for=20IPv6=20DHCP=22; X=v=3Dcisco.com=3B=20h=3Dk9QjAhY/qO8dfhVNr2VQ2U7Hn/s=3D; b=VnEuPlXbJ6yLHJWX94xpZKVpJFVtPm2adeuRE5Ul0IsxdqmkiNJgLvxhljyfIYlQ8KtLmETe 6bQr0IZ5wUzKje9odEU03GtQDnvKH+/fQUiKPrrwHYTfMt7YBi1Kkb2/;
Authentication-Results: sj-dkim-8.cisco.com; header.From=volz@cisco.com; dkim=pass ( sig from cisco.com verified; );
X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--)
X-Scan-Signature: 0ddefe323dd869ab027dbfff7eff0465
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org, "John Schnizlein (jschnizl)" <jschnizl@cisco.com>, Stig Venaas <stig.venaas@uninett.no>, "Ralph Droms (rdroms)" <rdroms@cisco.com>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: dhcwg.ietf.org
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: dhcwg-bounces@ietf.org

I, for one, don't see why we'd want to deprecate it. For example, if
DOCSIS is going to use this, it will be around for a long time. So, why
deprecate it. Sure, it isn't perfect and isn't complete information, but
for a lot of applications it is "good enough". For those that don't find
that the case, they are more than free to use the new options.

And, let the market decide. If 10 years from now no one uses this option
and you or someone else has the energy to want to deprecate it, go for
it.

- Bernie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eliot Lear [mailto:lear@cisco.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 07, 2006 4:03 PM
> To: Ted Lemon
> Cc: Stig Venaas; dhcwg@ietf.org; Ralph Droms (rdroms); Bernie 
> Volz (volz); John Schnizlein (jschnizl)
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Second dhc wg last call on "Time 
> Protocol Servers andTime Offset Options for IPv6 DHCP"
> 
> Ted Lemon wrote:
> > Stig Venaas wrote:
> >> How about adding some text to Ralph's draft summarizing the issues
> >> with offset and saying that one should rather implement what is
> >> specified in Eliot's?
> > I think we're dropping into the IETF slow zone here.   
> There's really
> > no need to put any admonitory language in here.   We can put it in
> > Eliots draft if necessary, since he's revising it, but the fact is
> > that nobody who's doing an operating system is going to use the time
> > offset as more than a UI hint, because it's incomplete.   
> It's useful
> > for deciding where to put the cursor in the system time zone
> > configuration UI, but it's not useful for actually setting the
> > timezone on _any_ modern operating system, and so there is zero risk
> > that it will be used this way.   Let's not rev the document 
> for this.
> 
> Right.  If the group is going to go forward with the Time Protocol
> Servers draft as is, you needn't update it.  But I believe 
> we'll need to
> have a healthy discussion on list about whether or not to 
> deprecate the
> offset function, and whether to do it now or later.  I will 
> not, by the
> way, be at Montreal.
> 
> Eliot
> 

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email