Re: [dhcwg] IETF-106 DHC WG Draft Minutes

Hi Ian and thanks for the feedback!

>1 question regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang - Do we know who volunteered to review?

No, sorry I don’t recall who it was and we didn’t ask. Perhaps whoever did volunteer will let us know. And, it really would be best to get even more to volunteer!!

>1 comment regarding draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - For the point about the use of RFC2119 language, I noted during that Suresh advised putting the draft back to standards track to solve this, but this is not recorded in the minutes.

OK, I can update the minutes. Though another solution would be to keep it Informational but remove 2119 language. I’m not sure why it has been the case, but many of these kinds of documents seem to be Informational instead of Standards Track.

And, I though you indicated you were following RFC7084 and the slides indicate this:

  *   Follows the RFC7084 approach of an Informational document with RFC2119 requirements language (changed in -v02)
but that is not the case. RFC7084 says:

   Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
   "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT",
   "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as
   described in RFC 2119<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119> [RFC2119<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>].  This document uses these keywords
   not strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the
   purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality.  As
   such, the document points to several other specifications (preferable
   in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers
   regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a
   successful CE router that interoperates successfully with a
   particular subset of currently deploying and planned common IPv6
   access networks.

Note the “are not used as described in RFC 2119”. Whereas your document has:

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",

   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "NOT RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and

   "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in BCP<https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14>

   14<https://tools.ietf.org/html/bcp14> [RFC2119<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119>] [RFC8174<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8174>] when, and only when, they appear in all

   capitals, as shown here.  This document uses these keywords not

   strictly for the purpose of interoperability, but rather for the

   purpose of establishing industry-common baseline functionality.  As

   such, the document points to several other specifications (preferably

   in RFC or stable form) to provide additional guidance to implementers

   regarding any protocol implementation required to produce a DHCP

   relaying router that functions successfully with prefix delegation.

Though not really sure it makes a difference as it appears that the RFC7084 usage is frowned upon.

  *   Bernie
From: ianfarrer@gmx.com <ianfarrer@gmx.com>
Sent: Monday, December 2, 2019 10:55 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] IETF-106 DHC WG Draft Minutes

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for posting them. A couple of comments:

1 question regarding draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang - Do we know who volunteered to review?

1 comment regarding draft-fkhp-dhc-dhcpv6-pd-relay-requirements - For the point about the use of RFC2119 language, I noted during that Suresh advised putting the draft back to standards track to solve this, but this is not recorded in the minutes.

Thanks,
Ian

On 2. Dec 2019, at 16:13, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com<mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:

Hi:

I have published DRAFT minutes for the IETF-106 DHC WG session – seehttps://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/106/materials/minutes-106-dhc-00.

They have been reviewed by your co-chairs, but we welcome corrections or other changes.

  *   Bernie & Tomek
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org<mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg