IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 07 September 2012 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
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 E75C521F8653 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ELWN8ntglO0E for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF03F21F862A for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUEokPulrgRGkm/ylALBAccIF9Z0F7R4/@postini.com; Fri, 07 Sep 2012 09:43:42 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 14CB71B8330 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0B6A419005C; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:42 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Fri, 7 Sep 2012 09:43:42 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
Thread-Index: AQHNdqZP3dOUnDeDJkKs3MsN2OTAhpd/JdswgAB/xoD//5GrgIAAeqgA//+K+5CAAHr7AA==
Date: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:43:41 +0000
Message-ID: <DD2C51BE-C032-402A-9989-D79A1A0AC2A0@nominum.com>
References: <0AE8374B-0E04-48FF-B71D-2EE8FAAC9ED1@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F83D1@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <21C54D57-372F-46B0-892B-398919992546@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F857F@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <CD3ECABE-12FB-428C-9FFF-078793B32C0E@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F85BA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E0F4F85BA@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <005A69BFB36B4E4189D1E6D1CD7F6359@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: dhc WG <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "Ole Troan (otroan)" <otroan@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC: draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00
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: Fri, 07 Sep 2012 16:43:44 -0000

On Sep 7, 2012, at 12:41 PM, "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
 wrote:
> Speaking for myself, I believe the answer is yes ... once I know what the scope of changes are (other than indicating that the document updates 3315/3633), I am happy to update and respin the document and do a second WG last call if the changes warrant or if the chairs or WG feels it is needed.
> 
> I too would like to have seen and see more people comment on this because there are some fairly significant changes. It also surprises me that few of the people that pushed for these changes have commented.

Yes, I think that's what Wes was getting at as well.   I will give the document a thorough read during the new WGLC.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email