IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt

Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com> Fri, 19 November 2010 13:32 UTC

Return-Path: <lear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBA7928C0FB for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:32:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -110.012
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-110.012 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.587, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id qf0lSJaJdjLO for <dhcwg@core3.amsl.com>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:32:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ams-iport-2.cisco.com (ams-iport-2.cisco.com [144.254.224.141]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DC0933A6837 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 05:32:10 -0800 (PST)
Authentication-Results: ams-iport-2.cisco.com; dkim=neutral (message not signed) header.i=none
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AsgEAJcL5kyQ/khMgWdsb2JhbACDRJ8WFQEBFiIioV6KNpEJgSKDNnMEils
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.59,222,1288569600"; d="scan'208";a="13632868"
Received: from ams-core-3.cisco.com ([144.254.72.76]) by ams-iport-2.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2010 13:33:00 +0000
Received: from ams3-vpn-dhcp8079.cisco.com (ams3-vpn-dhcp8079.cisco.com [10.61.95.142]) by ams-core-3.cisco.com (8.14.3/8.14.3) with ESMTP id oAJDWxjk021128; Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:32:59 GMT
Message-ID: <4CE67C9A.8070709@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 14:33:14 +0100
From: Eliot Lear <lear@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.12) Gecko/20101027 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.6
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: "Leaf Y. Yeh" <leaf.y.yeh@huawei.com>
References: <BC2DA9BF-7814-4505-8AEA-7513094490AC@nominum.com> <4CE64047.6010605@cisco.com> <B1C35A1D-F333-4906-BFC1-D77D91383462@nominum.com> <4CE64E4B.3030004@cisco.com> <015f01cb87ec$33197890$994c69b0$%y.yeh@huawei.com>
In-Reply-To: <015f01cb87ec$33197890$994c69b0$%y.yeh@huawei.com>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-yeh-dhc-dhcpv6-prefix-pool-opt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Fri, 19 Nov 2010 13:32:11 -0000

My point is that Tina put out a note saying that you guys were going to
restructure.  It just seems premature to adopt a WG draft PRIOR to that
restructure.  What's more, I don't think you want us to adopt the draft
until you've completed that task since making changes POST WG adoption
is considerably more arduous.  My suggestion, therefore, is to first put
out your restructured document and THEN request that it be adopted.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email