Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <> Wed, 31 May 2017 16:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 62C12126DFB for <>; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.522
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.522 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 3U4QHX_JWTQH for <>; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-SEED-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6EFAC126B6D for <>; Wed, 31 May 2017 09:54:05 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;;; l=13709; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1496249645; x=1497459245; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=AUMFaVY0CLq3Uf4d9gqC8Q1LCTnU+cIw601lR+nkN5k=; b=VGFoORARF61ssvbjy+EL3HhZqYgL+8ik7u2skoOTJo9wO0TYQoQSsPPZ LcFRQ2MM27rBL9iECYGCw+rYt/wAp6l73j9KzDmGsvqDqh+KMylcKA/7V 75zWAxuMMK7Yhz2whUXzR5tKaXkx3FdEk47gDfhZs57FYwfUVSLyev1vW E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.39,275,1493683200"; d="scan'208,217";a="433942737"
Received: from ([]) by with ESMTP/TLS/DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA; 31 May 2017 16:54:04 +0000
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id v4VGs4vo007036 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=FAIL); Wed, 31 May 2017 16:54:04 GMT
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 15.0.1210.3; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:54:03 -0500
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.00.1210.000; Wed, 31 May 2017 11:54:03 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <>
To: "" <>
CC: Ralph Droms <>
Thread-Topic: WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017
Thread-Index: AdLaLlsd9IiMjy2OQmywHG+6QlpKqw==
Importance: high
X-Priority: 1
Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 16:54:03 +0000
Message-ID: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-ms-exchange-transport-fromentityheader: Hosted
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_8083bab53ebb474b9fef05fea5fcbdd2XCHALN003ciscocom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by June 6th, 2017
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 31 May 2017 16:54:07 -0000


Tomek and I decided to extend the WGLC by about a week (to June 6th) in the hopes of soliciting more feedback.

Please take some time to review this document as this work is a critical product of the DHC WG!

-          Bernie

From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
Sent: Tuesday, May 09, 2017 10:53 AM
Cc: Ralph Droms <>
Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017


The co-authors believe that all of the issues reported for the last August WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 have now been resolved. But, because of the large number of changes, the DHC WG co-chairs feel another "WGLC" is appropriate.

Please review this document and provide your comments and whether you support the document moving forward by May 30th, 2017. The DHC WG co-chairs will again ask Ralph to evaluate the responses. We are doing a 3 week WGLC as the document is rather large and important to get right!

Please see

If you'd like to see the differences from the 05 version, use the diff tool at<>

The list of issues we recorded and action/assignee details are at (some additional issues are in

One very recent change to highlight is - this was to address a criticism that DHCPv6 is not responsive enough for some network configuration changes.

The co-authors thank those that reviewed this document during the previous WGLC and hope that those same reviewers (and hopefully more) will endeavor to do one more thorough review of the document.

-          Tomek & Bernie