RE: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

No objection - we should review the options for consistency with DHCP.

I'm also not sure why there is a need to ask as this is clearly in the
WG's current charter:

The DHC WG is responsible for reviewing (and sometimes developing)
DHCP options or other extensions (for both IPv4 and IPv6). The DHC WG
is expected to review all proposed extensions to DHCP to ensure that
they are consistent with the DHCP specification and other option
formats, that they do not duplicate existing mechanisms, etc. The DHC
WG will not (generally) be responsible for evaluating the semantic
content of proposed options. The DHC WG will not adopt new proposals
for extensions to DHCP as working group documents without first
coordinating with other relevant working groups and determining who
has the responsibility for reviewing the semantic content of an
option.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin@ietf.org] On Behalf Of
Ralph Droms
Sent: Wednesday, March 31, 2004 9:12 PM
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Internet Drafts to be reviewed by the dhc WG

OK - the *original* question was "Is there any objection to taking on
this review as a dhc WG work item, pending acceptance of the documents
by the midcom WG?"

Let me extend that question to ask for positive responses, as well -
please respond "yes" or "no" to the question "Should the dhc WG take on
review of draft-tran-midcom-dhcp-option-00.txt and
draft-tran-midcom-dhcpv6-option-00.txt, pending acceptance of the
documents by the midcom WG?"

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg