Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

[Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

W dniu 08.01.2018 o 03:04, Bernie Volz (volz) pisze:
>
> So, how about we go with:
>
>  
>
> The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
>
> for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
>
> IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other parameters. DHCPv4 is
>
> currently a Draft Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.
>
> DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG
>
> plans to advance the protocol to full standard.
>
>  
>
> The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions.
>
> Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard
>
> mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol
>
> extension and thus are generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
>
> options should be defined within their respective WGs and reviewed by
>
> DHCP experts in the Internet Area Directorate. However, if such options
>
> require protocol extensions or new semantics, the protocol extension
>
> work must be done in the DHC WG. Or, when no respective WG exists, the
>
> DHC WG may take on the option definitions work with approval from the
>
> responsible Area Director.
>
>  
>
> The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
>
>  
>
> 1. Develop documents that are related to operational considerations of
>
> DHCP for the wider community if and as needed.
>
>  
>
> 2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
>
> (that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
>
> considerations are properly documented.
>
>  
>
> 3. Additional topics and any option definition work may only be added
>
> with approval from the responsible Area Director or by re-chartering.
>
>  
>
> 4. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
>
> an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
>
The text looks great to me.

>  This includes all of Tomek’s proposed changes EXCEPT for adding
> anything to (2) for “external organizations”.
>
That's fine. I was not really keen of adding it, just asked whether
people thought this would be needed.

Tomek