RE: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03.txt

Paul will reply the comments pertaining to draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-03. I'm replying on the more general questions Thomas asked on behalf of CableLabs.

Thomans Narten wrote:
> >    IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client 
> >    Configuration Sub-options with an "Expert Review" 
> approval policy as 
> >    described in RFC 2434 [2]. Future proposed sub-options will be 
> >    assigned a numeric code chosen by CableLabs, which will be 
> >    documented in the Internet Drafts that describe the 
> sub-options. The 
> >    code assignment will be reviewed by a designated expert from the 
> >    IETF prior to publication in an RFC. 
> 
> 1) I think it should be IETF consensus, not expert review. these
>    options need to be reviewed by the IETF before they get implemented
>    and cast in stone. IETF Consensus is the safest way to ensure that
>    this happens.
> 2) IANA chooses the values (as it typically does), not
>    cablelabs. (Having cablelabs chose smells a bit like they want the
>    values early for their implementations and/or specs)
Fully agree with the "IETF Consensus" approach. 
My concern is we should be able to choose a temporary or experimental sub-option code to get implementations going & interoperability testing started.  Nothing "cast in stone" and upon IETF review and comments, we will issue Engineering Change Requests to modify our specs as appropriate.
What would be your best recommendation so that we can achieve our short-term goals to get implementations going for interop purposes while allowing IETF Consensus?

Jean-Francois.
CableLabs, PacketCable
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg