Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017

Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 12 July 2017 21:08 UTC

Return-Path: <rdroms.ietf@gmail.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 86699129B62 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wGB0_hrXch3J for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qt0-x22d.google.com (mail-qt0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0204012426E for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qt0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id r30so23307630qtc.0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:34 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:date:references :to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=7dgS5lznkCJRWDcGURdpL2b/uMu1cC2F7RglEHQRzhU=; b=a+0YL4ZUC98CkFtGysuEuYFsywSJtV1ys0tPsWDDi1CT9F763jCd+mD6gUpDGoNSp0 MMsN7joGSNhh0GrppBoxIt768eUykRzvwaAb7IpbjuTRiEgjin7lSH4QPCli29UUqSC3 Vzk8X9kW0LZqR6i7g38NhjfEhPsob3ZMtnim0RlrK3IcwG7pk/5NSQqtYqq3t52jJ+sz 44P5RNLj/GObUkN0MscEQWzfq9vqQRFXvKWZiqeH2qNSjYWrjiBL6zAUvfQp+baPXGr9 9zfjtOChBgFBZiC6/Nt+zYt1E91kv5sOnh9ZPmdOjyB1JU5DVHDLvGXrU5E4s3V26hYL yZtQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:date:references:to:in-reply-to:message-id; bh=7dgS5lznkCJRWDcGURdpL2b/uMu1cC2F7RglEHQRzhU=; b=nan0t8iKzFqbJmdWBh8YpBfwVqzWe3fFk5e3QkZRbOtjwpHoBPxwxeHm4s2euFNgKp BwMDOUF8zry3pH5PbCvvz8R6Mt+VG2EHBkuHk9d2VIfXiOuSxVsEFqb8qR+goLOOZRIZ rm2KNXN+2O5oV3dEJuvz5bEcbe8pcnuF853JUEGP+dYphui4IuUu2TGVvQZuYMvDw9Fe KXlQdIIIr0zxQAtf7NgCeYNT+DHlYhUMUpZJQOF6SCyWfkW66mpCPL/XXpOFRoLRQo9w ywWcS/EF0suUM27WeP+PfkInEhCtywEq4M8nKVdTUe8DstgBUlwxn++LcZARk20Q4Hdv T6CA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AIVw113UGR7JZGHv2OSvHIQw/tzdJixwzp0EO95PEc0fkPxZHmJIaAwe r7lvjQD2rdVYRH/q+gE=
X-Received: by 10.237.46.166 with SMTP id k35mr774622qtd.21.1499893713861; Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18f:801:600:48a8:babc:e4ef:a0cf? ([2601:18f:801:600:48a8:babc:e4ef:a0cf]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id r33sm2864700qtc.43.2017.07.12.14.08.33 for <dhcwg@ietf.org> (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 12 Jul 2017 14:08:33 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms.ietf@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\))
Date: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 17:08:32 -0400
References: <8418750467ae490ea50e342380a565be@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
In-Reply-To: <8418750467ae490ea50e342380a565be@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Message-Id: <3EF7A8C1-2BEC-4D4C-9CD9-BB5DDCA3B873@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/ZXFrBqznhwQxbP3s3GEtATUzF4k>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 - Respond by May 30th, 2017
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Wed, 12 Jul 2017 21:08:36 -0000

I've reviewed the discussion of draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08 during the (extended) WG last call.  Several thorough reviews were posted, and no negative responses were received.  I note Jinmei-san's abstention: https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/current/msg17577.html

In my opinion, the WG has expressed consensus to forward the document to the IESG, after the issues raised in the WG last call are addressed.

- Ralph

> On May 9, 2017, at 10:52 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello:
>  
> 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 https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.
>  
> If you’d like to see the differences from the 05 version, use the diff tool at https://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff:
>  
> https://tools.ietf.org//rfcdiff?url1=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08.txt&url2=https://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05.txt
>  
> The list of issues we recorded and action/assignee details are athttps://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1c3obOwmRQDldw0u_kv85B5Q4LnjnmvUp2MmsHDGmW98 (some additional issues are in https://trac.tools.ietf.org/group/dhcpv6bis/report).
>  
> One very recent change to highlight is https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-08#section-18.2.12 – 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