[dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)

"Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com> Wed, 29 July 2015 17:25 UTC

Return-Path: <volz@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B3B61B31CD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:25:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -14.51
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-14.51 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
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 m0OWl7anjeAD for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:25:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com [173.37.86.75]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB5FB1B31D3 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 10:25:43 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=9133; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1438190743; x=1439400343; h=from:to:subject:date:message-id:mime-version; bh=Y2LxodeDqT62/zXk3s7bQKvsVDjYvrMO+tYo7Y/WYWI=; b=W0WcCLvCvtxIqGU3/XBKBXFgyrtcxmkPBbwuDmuvVTQDwsAT7qb3asF0 dOq9hthJq1/f7QpcJ5BatMJWUjc1cuIjnchsy82s6YYqLUa0hoUaigjZS FctN0NzEQvHj0Gew85LEasr545C7bweua81U2Q71sanm9+Ms+O+5taBmZ w=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: A0AvAwBTC7lV/5hdJa1bgkhNVG+7fwmBfYV9AoFZOBQBAQEBAQEBfwuEJQEELUEdASpWJgEEG4gmqi6lcAEBAQEBAQEBAgEBAQEBAQEBFgSNC4JnEQEgLYMjgRQFkW+DAQGEeYkPhCCTSyZkgVuBPoF9OoEEAQEB
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos; i="5.15,572,1432598400"; d="scan'208,217"; a="16064652"
Received: from rcdn-core-1.cisco.com ([173.37.93.152]) by rcdn-iport-4.cisco.com with ESMTP; 29 Jul 2015 17:25:42 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com [173.36.12.88]) by rcdn-core-1.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id t6THPg3B009808 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL) for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:25:42 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com ([169.254.8.177]) by xhc-aln-x14.cisco.com ([173.36.12.88]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 12:25:42 -0500
From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
Thread-Index: AdDKIzbWOiOjvN2OTF2YqQPPD6D7kQ==
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:25:42 +0000
Message-ID: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [10.131.76.159]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1CB90384xmbrcdx04ciscoc_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/dTucP1PjV2KzgJTyNYR9vPBk9DE>
Subject: [dhcwg] IETF-93 Follow Up - draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses (Respond by Aug 11, 2015)
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 17:25:48 -0000

Hi:

At the DHC WG session at IETF-93 (Prague), we had a discussion about next steps for draft-ietf-dhc-stable-privacy-addresses. In particular, I (Bernie Volz) proposed we consider it a "dead WG" document (or possibly continue it as Informational). The consensus (hum) in the room was as follows:

-          Most felt (loudest hum) we should consider it a "dead WG" document.

-          A few (minor hum) were in favor of continuing work on it as an Information draft.

-          None (silent) were in favor of continuing work as is (standards track).
I had also asked this question to the mailing list a while back, and there was some discussion though no conclusive action as only a few people voiced an opinion.

While we don't yet have official minutes for the meeting, you can view the Etherpad notes and audio track by visiting https://tools.ietf.org/agenda/93/ and scrolling down to the DHC session (on Thursday afternoon) and clicking the appropriate links.

The WG chairs are required to confirm any consensus obtained from a session on the WG mailing list and that is the purpose of this email.

Thus, if you do NOT agree with the intended action to mark the document as "dead", please indicate so and specify why you feel this document is needed and whether to continue as Standards Track or Informational. Please respond on or before August 11th, 2015.

Thanks!


-          Bernie (& Tomek)