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

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Thu, 28 March 2002 16:22 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA03056 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:22:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id LAA25247 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:22:40 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24902; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:16:24 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id LAA24877 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:16:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com [161.44.11.97]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA02611 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:16:17 -0500 (EST)
Received: from goblet.cisco.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.11.3/8.9.1) with ESMTP id g2SGGBp16264; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:16:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from KKINNEAR-W2K.cisco.com (dhcp-161-44-149-122.cisco.com [161.44.149.122]) by goblet.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id AAX23996; Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:15:47 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020328110945.022740c0@goblet.cisco.com>
X-Sender: kkinnear@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 28 Mar 2002 11:15:47 -0500
To: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>, dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] stalled (?) dhc WG documents
Cc: kkinnear@cisco.com
In-Reply-To: <200203281523.g2SFNfk01530@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

At 10:23 AM 3/28/2002, Thomas Narten wrote:
>The following documents have been submitted to the IESG, but are
>awaiting revised IDs (per IESG comments sent a while back).
>
>draft-ietf-dhc-concat-01.txt (Comments sent Feb 1, 2002)
>draft-ietf-dhc-csr-05.txt (Comment sent Feb 1, 2002)
>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).

        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).

          b) I revise the draft based on MN comments and resubmit
          it, and then it goes again to IETF last call.

          c) I review the draft based on MN comments and it
          starts over again at WG last call.

        Thomas, Ralph, what do you prefer?

        I'd prefer (a), but (b) isn't bad.  I don't like (c), but
        I'll do whatever you want.

        Cheers -- Kim



>What can I do to help move these documents along?
>                                             
>Thomas
>
>_______________________________________________
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg 


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