RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

"Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com> Mon, 23 December 2002 17:43 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10384 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:43:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBNHkdK26032 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:46:39 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNHkdv26029 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:46:39 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10378 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:42:35 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNHiJv25947; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:44:19 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBNHh6v25902 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:43:06 -0500
Received: from snowmass.tci.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id MAA10197 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 12:39:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from mms01-relaya.tci.com (mms01-relaya.broadband.att.com [147.191.90.228]) by snowmass.tci.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBNHfvvY028802; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:41:57 -0700 (MST)
Received: from 147.191.89.203 by mms01-relaya.tci.com with ESMTP ( Tumbleweed MMS SMTP Relay (MMS v5.0)); Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:41:47 -0700
X-Server-Uuid: 90826C58-91B0-45EB-95A5-46B6D42E456F
Received: by entexchimc01.broadband.att.com with Internet Mail Service ( 5.5.2653.19) id <ZDJ1T110>; Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:41:06 -0700
Message-ID: <6732623D2548D61193C90002A5C88DCC01EBD014@entmaexch02.broadband.att.com>
From: "Woundy, Richard" <Richard_Woundy@cable.comcast.com>
To: 'Ralph Droms' <rdroms@cisco.com>, Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
cc: 'Paul Duffy' <paduffy@cisco.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:41:40 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2653.19)
X-WSS-ID: 12199551564731-01-01
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

OK, let's see how such coordination works with a real example:
<http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-suboptions-kdc-serveradd
ress-02.txt>.

This draft defines a single new CCC sub-option for use in so-called
"CableHome" devices. It was separated from the CCC option draft due to the
timing of the CCC WG last-call, etc.

This draft isn't perfect -- e.g. its IANA considerations section is awaiting
what happens to the CCC option draft -- but it is pretty close to what
CableLabs would be expecting. There has been no complaints about the review
schedule of this draft so far, because cable folks realize that the CCC
option draft needs to be approved first.

If the CCC draft were to be approved in January, how long would it take to
get this new draft approved?

-- Rich

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms@cisco.com]
Sent: Monday, December 23, 2002 10:21 AM
To: Thomas Narten
Cc: Woundy, Richard; 'Paul Duffy'; dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt


As a way of getting more timely coordination between CableLabs and the 
IETF, would it be possible to involve the IETF earlier in the process of 
developing an option?  That is, as soon as CableLabs identifies the need 
for a new sub-option, publish an Internet-Draft describing that sub-option 
and bring it to the IETF/DHCWG.  Development can take place in parallel - 
Internet-Drafts are cheap - so that the WG has a chance to review the new 
option and can be prepared to bring it to last call as soon as the 
CableLabs change control process has the new specs in place.

- Ralph

At 10:56 AM 12/21/2002 -0500, Thomas Narten wrote:
> > I wish there was a way to balance IETF's needs to review new
> > suboptions, and CableLabs needs to define new suboptions in a timely
> > fashion.
>
>I agree. I am still under the assumption that this is achievable.




_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg