IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 19 April 2012 13:58 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A7D9A21F85A5 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.524
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.524 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.074, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id mMqA2ospt-sx for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og125.obsmtp.com (exprod7og125.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88B0521F85A2 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:56 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob125.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKT5AaIFEmCxX98kIp4dXswOUQwiSJHU9f@postini.com; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:56 PDT
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 BA8601B8333 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES128-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B218519006D for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:55 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.02.0247.003; Thu, 19 Apr 2012 06:58:49 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Thread-Topic: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item
Thread-Index: AQHNE1Jkl7tgtOxKmkWYH3w2Igkw0Zait8kA
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:58:48 +0000
Message-ID: <67C32110-F782-4BD4-9167-0E5F6C786E88@nominum.com>
References: <D9B5773329187548A0189ED6503667890B9F42CB@XMB-RCD-101.cisco.com> <DDF37113-DA02-47E4-BD64-828C9C5C384B@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <DDF37113-DA02-47E4-BD64-828C9C5C384B@nominum.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_67C32110F7824BD491670E5F6C786E88nominumcom_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Call for Adoption, draft-troan-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues-00 as WG item
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Thu, 19 Apr 2012 13:58:57 -0000

On Apr 5, 2012, at 1:34 PM, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com<mailto:Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>> wrote:
This draft documents issues that have come up involving interactions between prefix delegation and regular IP address allocation in practice.   If you would like the working group to work on documenting this, please signify by responding to this message in the affirmative.   If you don't think we should work on it, please respond in the negative.   If you have no opinion, please do not respond.

We will determine consensus on Thursday, April 19.

Thirteen participants spoke in favor of adopting the document, and none opposed it, so it's officially adopted as a working group item.   Would the authors please submit a new version (perhaps with edits as a result of Leaf's, Tomek's, Bud's and Bernie's comments?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email