Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

Hi Bernie,

I think the new wording looks generally fine, with the following 2 comments:

1, The first two paragraphs are relevant to both DHCPv4 & 6, but the objectives are all DHCPv6 specific. Whilst I agree that DHCPv6 should be very much the focus of the WG, I wouldn’t like to see it preclude e.g. reviving the DHCPv4 yang model draft (draft-liu-dhc-dhcp-yang-model). I guess this can be handled by DHCPv4 work not being a 'main objective'. Is this the right understanding? Should there be text to reflect this?

2, Para. 1: "DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG plans to advance the protocol to full standard."

This sentence is a little cumbersome. A suggested re-word:

"DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard that is being updated. The WG plans to advance the protocol to full standard.”

Thanks,
Ian

> On 10. Jan 2018, at 23:43, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi:
>  
> OK, dropped #3 (while it is standard practice, it might not always be obvious to all so I thought it was useful) and added the “or sponsored by an appropriate AD”.
>  
> So, I think we are now with the following proposed re-charter text:
>  
> The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
> for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
> IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other parameters. DHCPv4 is
> currently a Draft Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.
> DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG
> plans to advance the protocol to full standard.
>  
> The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions.
> Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard
> mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol
> extension and thus are generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
> options should be defined within their respective WGs or sponsored by an
> appropriate AD and reviewed by DHCP experts in the Internet Area
> Directorate. However, if such options require protocol extensions or new
> semantics, the protocol extension work must be done in the DHC WG.
>  
> The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
>  
> 1. Informational documents providing operational or implementation advice
> about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for
> operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients, and relay
> agents.
>  
> 2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
> (that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
> considerations are properly documented.
>  
> 3. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
> an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
>  
> -          Bernie
>  
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:32 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
>  
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
> OK, that leaves us saying nothing about this particular issue and it will still be up to Suresh (or the then current AD) to deal with new options work that wasn’t done elsewhere. But I guess that isn’t “in our charter” to resolve. Though we could work in the following minor change if we wanted to attempt to at least capture the spirit - “within their respective WGs or sponsored by an appropriate AD”.
>  
> Yup.
>  
> I think you could really just delete point 3—it's just repeating things that are standard practice.
>  
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg