[dhcwg] prefix-length hint issues for Standards Track?

tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com> Mon, 20 June 2016 01:21 UTC

Return-Path: <peter416733@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 6E03112D891 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:21:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.449
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.449 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, 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 wB185_WQlNB1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:21:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ob0-x22d.google.com (mail-ob0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4003:c01::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 E288712D888 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ob0-x22d.google.com with SMTP id ot10so5396860obb.2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=2MYBUx7LMn8MQ+mhJurNcObimiJCKZm4RjpPlwwvnjU=; b=b4jrv/c7FYy0OdB0/1CFGMghjuRgOq0tKmiAp0FinTL5hfT4HZs+5uFXgk4kKCiAyG lDOSTfDK5fxx92q662SSjZaNTA+eMbB4uyiXGsZEfQWzINEn7eaf74M7cUbuPl25gJcz kHMCVGbAbfD9GdBrP+G77yIaYPaQnMx3og+sAGHHoKzlmarC2tlWoqoINBjZkFCkEM9t TxTO8FlLYQRu5fk32W1XhoIkTF8PdNEq+lpY5MTXQEXMhUpcvKcBW228TFggEcvKCsfT IegE0TtQAvQ9eIwuhn7JCYgMrGVQqRJR8RwJdeegGlYbgTbN7dr/JoUj3dM9e0lUk/YJ fd/Q==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to; bh=2MYBUx7LMn8MQ+mhJurNcObimiJCKZm4RjpPlwwvnjU=; b=Gt2fAH99jwsievhUiSOe1OqLI0egkKeakxh+ay94xJ8TUdJdNYk/8Ua55ZN69JAWId n+uASGRf7K8Fa+cPlosHm71EbHRd8JvM09RmXK829RYSDdrB9myTWK4qew8dVHszZZed +Tl0ETimsvcPThU/OsFe5qOC1rjvq1QMI5TW8pNg57p/xLKcrebATeHHKLpDulLgosW4 NAx4F4eoRJQp0L3H26/w3T5rFXxQhYmvaPEd1Hy7lOTv+vxYRbUBtKqsLOHEdqi2l9ch 4cZTyvjIns1fjgpgD041lY0wgME3OnNyarVmlRDPKEq+/KbU+KsGdGTzORFgyhV2lzmq rCZA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tJkcv6HUR+MynKIndfK52nPSMZ9pkVhE5GCj6JGCM0rscqYST1UV2o2MjDlHUIhZRebninjCw4MxUxdtg==
X-Received: by 10.157.8.65 with SMTP id 59mr7900074oty.114.1466385670259; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:21:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.202.49.81 with HTTP; Sun, 19 Jun 2016 18:20:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: tianxiang li <peter416733@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:20:30 +0800
Message-ID: <CAFx+hENNCm=S4UXPWJ04CNP-fnNf346GaTYw9u2zGiYHWuNkdQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=94eb2c047bfafacb1d0535ab84eb
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/cc42EhuCfpeRW0VYOoK0HoapCQg>
Subject: [dhcwg] prefix-length hint issues for Standards Track?
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 01:21:12 -0000

Hi all,

We've updated a new version of the prefix-length hint issues draft (
https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-length-hint-issue-02.txt
).

We've edited some text in the solution sections and added normative
language. Also we added some text in the introduction section to explain
the motivation of the draft clearer, based on comments from the mailinglist.

We hope to receive your comments, especially concerning the use of
normative language, and whether it's okay for Standards Track.

Thank you,
Tianxiang