Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022

Hi Tim,

I support the adoption of the draft.

Once the 8415-bis process gets a bit further along, we’ll need to see if the DHCPv6 YANG modules need updating.

Thanks,
Ian

> On 2. Dec 2022, at 22:27, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi Bernie,
> 
> I was thinking about this today as well, all the support for adoption came from the authors of the document.  Let's extend the adoption call until 12/14. 
> 
>  In the meeting room at IETF 114 there seemed to be general interest in this work, but we need confirmation on the list. 
> 
> Can others from the working group chime on the mailing list if they support this for an adoption call?
> 
> ~Tim
> 
> On Fri, Dec 2, 2022 at 4:13 PM Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com <mailto:bevolz@gmail.com>> wrote:
> What’s the status of this adoption call?
> 
> My guess is that it kind of failed as we had noone except myself comment to the list? But perhaps I missed some?
> 
> I do think we may need to consider adding an “Implementation Status” section as recommended by https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content <https://authors.ietf.org/recommended-content> (this would not end up in RFC).
> 
> - Bernie Volz
> 
>> On Nov 2, 2022, at 4:28 PM, Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com <mailto:bevolz@gmail.com>> wrote:
>> 
>> Hi:
>> 
>> Not sure how much it counts as I did many of the edits from RFC8415 for this bis draft, but I strongly support adoption by the WG of this document.
>> 
>> It would be great to get input from others on the changes as well as the few areas I had pointed out when announcing publication if the draft to the WG:
>> 
>>> A few areas to consider during your review:
>>> - Should we reduce some of the background material, such as sections 1.1 and 1.2 and/or 3.
>>> - Should we remove all text related to even checking for unicast transmissions and even deprecate the UseMulticast status code. I think the only case that can end up with unicast at a 8415bis server would be if the server had been sending Server-Unicast option and is then upgraded as existing (pre8415bis clients) may then unicast … but likely if the upgraded server just accepted the message, there would not really be any harm. A 8415bis client that always multicasts should never run into problems (and thus get the UseMulticast status). The 8415bis server would never need to check if unicast.
>>> - The Acknowledgements section has XXX, as (your) names will be inserted here as work on the document continues.
>> 
>> - Bernie Volz
>>> On Oct 20, 2022, at 4:50 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com <mailto:tim@qacafe.com>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Hello:
>>> 
>>> We would like initiating a WG call for adoption on draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis>.  This document is an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification with the intention of advancing to Internet standard.
>>> 
>>> This starts the call for adoption of this document. Please respond by November 18, 2022.
>>> 
>>> Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or should not adopt this document as a work item.
>>> 
>>> Thanks,
>>> Tim and Bernie
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> dhcwg mailing list
>>> dhcwg@ietf.org <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg