Re: [dhcwg] WGLC for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 - Respond by Dec 9, 2013

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Bernie,

> That's an informational RFC and references (informational) work in progress (which sometimes changes or is even abandoned). That's the risk the IETF acknowledges with such references.

you are saying that RFC7040 should be updated?

> If DHCPv4 works "as is", what more do you need from the DHC WG? Use DHCPv4 "as is" - what's stopping you?

to stop inventing solutions to non-existing problems.

> We are trying to solve the general problem when all that can be assured is the ability to send IPv6 packets.

I have asked multiple times for an explanation of what you are trying to achieve, and what makes this a "general problem".
I don't believe there is such a problem. and not one that makes sense in an A+P / softwire context.

> We will consider your objection during the rough consensus review.

I would expect so. note also for your shepherding document that I have threatened an appeal.

Best regards,
Ole


> - Bernie (from iPad)
> 
> On Dec 2, 2013, at 2:21 PM, "Ole Troan" <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
>>> Folks, the authors of draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03 (http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-over-dhcpv6-03.txt) believe it is ready for working group last call. Please review this draft and indicate whether or not you feel it is ready to be published. Your input is important! Please respond by Dec 9th, 2013.
>> 
>> I do not support publication of this document.
>> I believe that using DHCPv4 as currently specified (RFC2131, RFC5107, RFC3456, RFC3046) is sufficient also for A+P softwire tunnels.
>> 
>> RFC7040 references DHCPv4 over IPv6. is this working group also going to specify this alternative transport?
>> 
>> cheers,
>> Ole
>>