IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-rajtar-dhc-v4configuration

Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org> Wed, 13 February 2013 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
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 F116321F86FF for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:58:41 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -10.507
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-10.507 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.092, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id jons+SCZ5Vq4 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from banjo.employees.org (banjo.employees.org [IPv6:2001:1868:205::19]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA92521F86EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:58:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from dhcp-lys02-vla252-10-147-116-66.cisco.com (64-103-25-233.cisco.com [64.103.25.233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by banjo.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3BE375ECB; Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:58:40 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.2 \(1499\))
From: Ole Troan <otroan@employees.org>
In-Reply-To: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074748A45A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:58:38 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D7865D66-1EC4-41A4-8D81-D5724842A9F7@employees.org>
References: <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B630747487A63@mbx-01.win.nominum.com> <282BBE8A501E1F4DA9C775F964BB21FE519D1A750C@GRFMBX704BA020.griffon.local> <8D23D4052ABE7A4490E77B1A012B63074748A45A@mbx-01.win.nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1499)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Capello Alessandro <alessandro.capello@telecomitalia.it>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-rajtar-dhc-v4configuration
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 13:58:42 -0000

Ted,

>> I do not support the adoption of this draft.
>> There are scenarios (like IPv6 with PPP) where DHCPv4 is not used at all, while DHCPv6 is required and already in place for IPv6 connectivity. Adding DHCPv4 would require changing the current architecture, while re-using DHCPv6 in my opinion appears a simpler approach.
> 
> Using DHCPv6 is one of the three options described in the draft.   If you disagree with the current stated conclusions of the draft, that's a separate issue; the call for adoption is to address the question of whether the DHC working group should summarize the issues here and attempt to state a preferred solution.   Are you saying that the DHC working group should not make any decision at all about this?

the draft is useful for discussion, although I disagree with the conclusion. I'm not sure if we ever want to publish this as an RFC, so I'm happy with keeping it as an individual contribution that we can use as basis for discussion and choices for the documents that we do publish.

cheers,
Ole

v2.39.1 | Report a Bug | By Email | System Status