Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th

神明達哉 <> Thu, 28 July 2016 18:46 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 268ED12DC80 for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:46:01 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.598
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.598 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FORGED_FROMDOMAIN=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 5kPN4zO9zQEj for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c0d::22d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B362E12DC6D for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id 52so53743586qtq.3 for <>; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:58 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id :subject:to:cc; bh=QIlrhKjqcLOsrilh4t7QafzDwo2KTFB6jrNZtH7bWPQ=; b=eBojA9VK7BcGqWm5XwPQf9IJJ0WGQP/jiXdwbC80/QHpSgVa2gvLpRLEyOLYeZrfgU OOyPZL4aNt874AeN6EuxUFzyxZNJXybel5/CI8skoiNSJGn0e/Esitkl5L1qgx9E+qcz f/S607cjA1pYe8Y26Ztwp5pJe/27O22vmEb8Gxvwwx3Wzp84FK5Cb+GffSXGe30l+iN0 ziC6LYnD3a2HuNKO3mP9KDA1HUHQkKm5dIImUpYyy1JUsDllZWrIN0nnaPskTaBHuKQZ SyTiN7615XruJuZYoQ1u/6gxe5Rdo2kbguqKJ0O0NaRWyYQcp1SKEub6BuwTaxZw0s44 B4NA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from :date:message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QIlrhKjqcLOsrilh4t7QafzDwo2KTFB6jrNZtH7bWPQ=; b=ShsZkaBX+23xLDmwU74SWUYwffjnlvAGezoP//m6jWooirvohu7kD/LZ3HDqrAQ2A9 +XrEeK59+c09lRQBGz/0+xL4rjYGVy9lkPm5S3EiDWItAsXt30UmjRLpw8WMyGqIZdvJ CelzcRomyAYERo5jBiQ8qstyhLgnbvM8g2YxeVYvOxsmqvTzuF1/n1eI1HEjZ60LqZwq 7Iv4gxCkafpCUaVZYw4CFK2imGzaxAVYZ8PltKse8BdPZfbE+JbRW7oNrCCLa5H504dN YRM792Cl41fJlls7Xh9ITyxlwAQUK4OWGQ0QUDZu9ORCajRGI9gloUyaTac15CIstHaV S1Zw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AEkoouvcyHVMncv0BDIkZdrs9j+CvdNHCLOciutD9r9wKyRtQ7h4l+J1475WRLVPWP8mrCdRCVzV0ihBbaUq6w==
X-Received: by with SMTP id e48mr58659575qta.64.1469731557805; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:57 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <>
From: 神明達哉 <>
Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 11:45:57 -0700
X-Google-Sender-Auth: MoeJ3LZBmcybmSu2mSrRaV0Dd5M
Message-ID: <>
To: Tomek Mrugalski <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: <>
Cc: dhcwg <>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2016 18:46:01 -0000

> From: dhcwg [] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
> Sent: Friday, July 08, 2016 1:03 PM
> To: dhcwg <>
> Subject: [dhcwg] WGLC on draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 - respond by August 8th
> Hi all,
> So the day finally has come. Authors working on RFC3315bis believe that after over two years of work, this document is ready for working group last call. This call initiates the working group last call on
> draft-ietf-dhc-rfc3315bis-05 [1]. Since this is a large document
> (130+ pages), there's upcoming meeting and a holiday period, chairs
> decided to do an extended last call that will last 4 weeks. Please
> post your comments by August 8th.


> If you would like to review more important changes, looking at
> appendices A anb B seems like a good place to start. If you like to
> see the list of tickets addressed, see [2]. Many smaller issues were
> discussed on dhcpv6bis mailing list [3].

A couple of quick comments:

- Appendix A.  Changes since RFC3315

   Note: This appendix should be removed by the RFC-Editor when
   preparing the document for publication.

I don't think it a good idea to completely skip a section on changes
from the updated RFCs (this comment applies to Appendix B too).  In
its current form the change list is quite useless, but that doesn't
mean we can/should simply omit including a list of changes.  In fact,
IMO, a change list is even more important for such a huge document as
this one.

This comment is also related to the review process - as a voluntary
(possible) reviewer, it's very painful to (be asked to) read a change
list like this one: in some cases it simply refers to some ticket
number without saying what's changed, and in some cases some of the
changes are made moot because of some later changes (e.g., there are
some changes related to the delayed authentication protocol, but
change #48 makes them irrelevant).

I would strongly suggest introducing a more readable and well
organized "Changes since" appendices (which should stay on
publication).  That will also help entice more people to review, or at
least take a glace of, the doc.

JINMEI, Tatuya