Re: [dhcwg] stalled (?) dhc WG documents

Thomas Narten <> Thu, 28 March 2002 18:47 UTC

Received: from ( [] (may be forged)) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10220 for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:47:50 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id NAA05434 for; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:47:52 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05156; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:43:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (odin []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id NAA05133 for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id NAA10030 for <>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:43:03 -0500 (EST)
Received: from (narten@localhost) by (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id g2SIfhd03530; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:41:43 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: Kim Kinnear <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] stalled (?) dhc WG documents
In-Reply-To: Message from Kim Kinnear <> of "Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:15:47 EST." <>
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 13:41:22 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <>
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <>

Kim Kinnear <> writes:

> >draft-ietf-dhc-agent-subnet-selection-00.txt (discussed in Minneapolis
> >                                             -- what was the
> >                                             resolution and next steps?)

>         I was going to revise it based on the comments in MN and
>         based on whatever you told me was feedback from the IESG
>         as far as IETF last call (a title change at least to add
>         IPv4, as well as other comments I haven't yet received from
>         you).

I think I've sent you all the comments I have. But if you point me to
a copy of the revised ID before you send it in I will double check.

>         As the comments in MN only touched on a relatively minor
>         part of the draft (sending the sub-option back to the
>         client if you used it), then I was assuming that we
>         didn't need to go through WG last call again, but I'm
>         open to suggestion on that.

>         So, I see the following possible approaches:

>           a) I revise the draft based on IESG comments and MN
>           comments and we are done (based of course on the IESG
>           comments and some final review of the result).

This seems fine to me, though I think "some final review of the
result" could in practice be a one-week WG last call. Especially if a
few folks quickly chime in and say "I've read the new text and its


dhcwg mailing list