Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)

["Mudric, Dusan (Dusan)" <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

Can somebody please provide examples of deployment needs for DHCPv6 RECONFIGURE message (or DHCPv4 DHCPFORCEINFORENEW), for both stateful and stateless DHCPv6 clients?

Regards,
Dusan Mudric.

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Tomek Mrugalski
Sent: Wednesday, May 04, 2016 12:42 PM
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Ends May 8, 2016)

Good DHC people,

This is just a reminder that we have adoption call in progress, but so far the number of responses is... disappointing. This is a very short (4 pages of technical text) I-D. Please take a quick look and state whether you're ok with it. Or better yet, review it thoroughly and post your comments. Your opinion and your comments are much appreciated.

The adoption call will end early next week.

With my co-chair hat off, I support adoption of this draft. It is short, well motivated (good explanation what the problem is and why it needs
solving) and reasonable draft. In my opinion it simply introduces parity between DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 (v6 has the capability to reconfigure options only since RFC3315 was published in 2003). This mechanism has been around for well over a decade and is operationally proven to work.

Tomek

On 22.04.2016 16:48, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> Hi:
> 
> At the IETF-95 DHC WG session, Luyuan Fang gave a presentation on
> draft-fang-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions-02 (Forcerenew 
> Reconfiguration Extensions for DHCPv4) - see 
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_proceedings_95_slides_slides-2D95-2Ddhc-2D6.pdf&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=fdrSa2jxD0SbN3vaFTNMwWC_yclWLZ8spS0pKJEMjx4&e= .
> 
> There was a brief discussion about whether there was sufficient 
> interest in the WG to take on this work and the conclusion was to take 
> it to the list (which we would have needed to do anyway).
> 
> So, we are starting an Adoption Call for this draft 
> (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__tools.ietf.org_html_draft-2Dfang-2Ddhc-2Ddhcpv4-2Dforcerenew-2Dextensions-2D02&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=so5zarbh0Ii_cWj1iC6ifCVWHmBw4WeoVLdfUi7fu9E&e= ).
> 
> Please respond by May 8, 2016 whether you support having the WG take 
> on this work. Please note that this means YOU need to be involved in 
> resolving open issues, reading draft updates, and otherwise actively 
> participating to move this work forward.
> 
> The abstract from the draft is:
> 
>    This document extends the definition of the DHCPFORCERENEW message
>    for parameter reconfiguration in DHCPv4. This extension makes the
>    DHCPFORCERENEW message more suitable to reconfigure configuration
>    parameters other than IP addresses, and aligns the behavior of the
>    reconfiguration procedure in DHCPv4 to the corresponding behavior in
>    DHCPv6.
> 
> While not directly on the WG's current charter, we have confirmed with 
> our AD (Suresh) that this would be acceptable work for us to adopt (no 
> re-chartering will be necessary).
> 
> -          Tomek and Bernie

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[e-mail]
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ietf.org_mailman_listinfo_dhcwg&d=CwIF-g&c=BFpWQw8bsuKpl1SgiZH64Q&r=UT3Bk9cbLeaJxhf3iCrhIoUWB8YLZU23029sMQGQ2kY&m=9AtpUL6fIYzFJHKD_D34cbLaSr7UfQJoVnHqCCSc3iI&s=PVv9LskHr2eCb4z-MQ6MzHHJxv7ehdNMUO9uhkCGxZk&e=