RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Fri, 25 January 2002 16:42 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06898 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:42:08 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA25657 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:42:10 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24348; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:27:28 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24326 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:27:26 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA06528 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:27:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-85.cisco.com [161.44.149.85]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id LAA24772 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:26:52 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020125110813.01a96e90@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2002 11:27:15 -0500
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <JCELKJCFMDGAKJCIGGPNCEJHDJAA.rbhibbs@pacbell.net>
References: <69035262-103E-11D6-AF3C-00039317663C@nominum.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Let me reiterate - just because *we* don't see any controversy in the 
current set of options doesn't mean the IESG won't have questions about one 
or more of them.  And, Ted is right - we can back options out at a later 
date if there's a problem.  Personally, I'd rather give the IESG as small 
as possible a target when the draft gets to them...

So, Barr, you proposed a list of questions to ask about options (which is 
included below).  We need to come to closure - I'd like to have that 
closure by this afternoon so we can finish the draft over the weekend - 
who's willing to volunteer a straw-person list of options for the DHCPv6 draft?

- Ralph

At 03:29 PM 1/23/2002 -0800, Richard Barr Hibbs wrote:


> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ted Lemon
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 23, 2002 12:19
> >
> > I don't see any reason to remove options about which there is no
> > controversy from the DHCPv6 draft.   I think it's fine to
> > say "no more," but not to start taking them all out.
> >
>...exactly.  Is it possible to construct a simple test by which to judge an
>option as appropriate for inclusion in the base document?  For example:
>
>(1) is it required for implementation or deployment of a crucial service
>(for example, DNS or SLP)
>
>(2) is it essential to implement mandatory or highly desirable functionality
>(such as authentication or security)?
>
>(3) is it necessary to support transition from IPv4 to IPv6?
>
>(4) is it currently widely deployed with DHCPv4?
>
>(5) has the option been stably defined for DHCPv6 for at least several draft
>revisions?
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg


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