Re: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-lemon-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options

Hi,
I think it is a good idea to specify such generic mechanism as a wheel for many different usages, e.g., MIP bootstrapping, inter-authenticator handover, etc.
When we started draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery, this wheel is not ready and we thought the same idea to invent relay-supplied-options in the initial version
Therefore I favor this draft and would like to support adopting this work.

Regards!
-Qin
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Ted Lemon" <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Sent: Tuesday, September 14, 2010 11:53 PM
Subject: [dhcwg] Call for adoption: draft-lemon-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options

> Back in March I published a draft describing a mechanism whereby the relay agent can propose options for the DHCP server to supply to the client:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-lemon-dhcpv6-relay-supplied-options-00
> 
> This was motivated by a document in the RFC Editor queue that defined a special mechanism to do this for one particular option; my motivation in proposing the draft was to provide a general mechanism.
> 
> I hadn't heard back from the author or shepherd of the document that originally motivated this draft, but now there's a proposal in hokey that does pretty much the same thing, to a different end:
> 
> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-hokey-ldn-discovery-03
> 
> That being the case, this has become a hot issue again.   When I presented this previously, there seemed to be rough consensus that it was a good idea, but that was a room consensus, so I'd like to take it to the list.
> 
> If there's debate about this, please debate it now.   If not, please let me know if you favor adopting this as a working group item, or let me know if you oppose adopting it as a working group item.   Assuming there isn't protracted debate, we'll call the decision on Monday.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg