IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Wed, 05 February 2014 23:31 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.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 C344C1A0258 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:40 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] 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 Lkwu0n8JMWda for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og119.obsmtp.com (exprod7og119.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E4C3B1A0224 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob119.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvLJ2pyK4WtBvRF2+6drYJ7FO0wb0Btb@postini.com; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 15:31:38 PST
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2776C1B82F2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 202FD190052; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 15:31:37 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE594E4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 18:31:35 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <50C073ED-1B32-45FE-947E-BAA451353D4D@nominum.com>
References: <20140204093611.4914.51694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52F0F3C2.20807@viagenie.ca> <4B094E1A-431F-4F2B-9004-37D6D12BE8F8@nominum.com> <52F0F8F4.4060905@viagenie.ca> <EEEC392B-7B7B-4AAE-BE24-AEC944DFABFA@nominum.com> <CF17B34D.17390%praspati@cisco.com> <07C71B9E-3D2B-4714-9A5C-67C51B9F028F@nominum.com> <CF183474.17FEB%praspati@cisco.com> <48ADF973-C96B-415D-BA95-0EE5311114E2@nominum.com> <CF184487.18206%praspati@cisco.com> <D3DCF5DD-549F-4F73-B33E-8F6A428606BD@nominum.com> <52F25607.8060706@s-carlsen.dk> <1C267188-BEF2-47C5-9347-D50132FF6D73@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE594E4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt
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: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/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, 05 Feb 2014 23:31:41 -0000

On Feb 5, 2014, at 5:14 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> Yeah, I was kind of skeptical about this too ... but (at least some) coauthors are from a router vendor, so they obviously believe this is worth doing (or getting someone within their organization to do). And, that issue was asked at the Vancouver IETF:

The fact that someone who works for Cisco thinks Cisco might implement this isn't an indication that Cisco will implement it.   Maybe they will, maybe they won't.   That's why I was asking if there was demand for this solution.

I realize that this has been adopted by the working group, and that we talked about whether it fits with the charter, but if I agreed that it fit, I don't know what I was smoking.   What's interesting about this work is its operational aspect.   So the motivation for doing this should be coming from an ops working group, not the DHC working group.

Did this in fact come about as the result of some consensus from v6ops that this work was needed?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email