Re: [dhcwg] Re: Last Call: Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6) to Proposed Standard

Pekka - thanks for your feedback on the DHCPv6 draft.  I'm working
on a document that describes the messages and options of DHCPv6 that
would be required for DNS configuration.  I expect to publish the
document in a few days.

- Ralph

At 05:01 PM 5/6/2002 +0300, Pekka Savola wrote:
>On Thu, 2 May 2002, The IESG wrote:
> >
> > The IESG has received a request from the Dynamic Host Configuration
> > Working Group to consider Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for
> > IPv6 (DHCPv6) <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt> as a Proposed Standard.
> >
> > The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
> > final comments on this action.  Please send any comments to the
> > iesg@ietf.org or ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by May 15, 2002.
> >
> > Files can be obtained via
> > http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-24.txt
>
>IPv6 working group has discussed a possibility of using a light-weight
>DHCPv6 solution for e.g. DNS configuration, but nothing related to address
>allocation.
>
>I threw up this idea and there was some support for it.  Many people are a
>bit unconfortable with "legacy" parts of DHCPv6, that aren't really all
>that necessary with IPv6.  And these features are the ones that most
>people will not need.
>
>So I see two practical approaches:
>
>  1) separate the draft to:
>     a) Dynamic Node Configuration Protocol, which is used for
>Informational Records only (the main specification)
>     b) XXX, which is used when one wants the "stateful" parts, e.g.
>address allocation.
>
>    This has the great benefit that when the vast majority of people are
>    only interested about a), the base specification would become very
>    simple and relatively short.
>
>    The drawback naturally is that this requires more work..
>
>  2) after publishing the draft as is, later come back and specify
>    which parts of the DHCPv6 protocol to implement to get either a).
>
>    This has the drawback that those that are only intrerested about the
>    lightweight solution have to go through the whole of DHCPv6, and
>    that conceptually separating the two might be difficult.
>
>Needless to say, I'm in the favor of 1); I've never been a big fan of
>the idea behind DHCPv6, but this way I'd find it rather interesting, for
>solving the initial configuration problem.
>
>--8<--
>Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2002 19:09:14 +0200 (EET)
>From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
>To: rdroms@cisco.com
>Cc: ipng@sunroof.eng.sun.com
>Subject: Stateless DHCP and the DHCP draft
>
>Hi,
>
>Would it make sense to consider whether separating "stateless DHCPv6" and
>the stateful part (~address assignment) to separate drafts would make
>sense?
>
>I think a lot more people would be confortable with DHCPv6 if it was very
>simple and supported only the informational records most people would only
>use.. and stateful address and such specified in a separate draft?
>
>Just a thought...
>--8<--
>
>--
>Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
>Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
>Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords
>
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>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