Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Wed, 10 January 2018 22:45 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.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 6387A124205 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.59
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.59 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_KAM_HTML_FONT_INVALID=0.01] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 o0wHkYh91X6r for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qk0-x22e.google.com (mail-qk0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB95A1205F0 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-qk0-x22e.google.com with SMTP id j185so1607045qkc.5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=UDHbOp3QLbnKgoixr+myRoxIOWJWPYQWxDOJ7GsouS0=; b=opeaweqvgW1neM/e0Fq1qcgf5Wk90lz+aUE39RbGRJdH9xOB+8c5a0Ar6Zm41c+49T DrOnOwG+pCp+aoKraULpsQaZ9cLWHmm7dU4S4tVzAFG5JKo41ZimFXyJ4SLkbvnbnWca pTohaydg6FO/m4sSRYMVEmWC0J5jY9HYVqZ8kNBNRFd2mTOdXl2Sr6zGldeFe0sDQXXM V5aI8DC2PyHCVnMx/ZTEZQHSPSpCS30Xnrz80KVGpt/4QZ91Kja3bwrsa4ATX6TXVoH9 SmnroqX3jugtTmTDqGAbZzdd21JEyPqPrzOKWrlhiohi1fvPE9SuEEgoPv69rvlk9IeI GCXQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=UDHbOp3QLbnKgoixr+myRoxIOWJWPYQWxDOJ7GsouS0=; b=RH2DOw7LAJN9lFY7//T6rV+ETrG9bHpRNuvMF65rETH8hV+Adp+roA47M/2LwJNIg+ qT6htbK8Hs+iOnBLNua8bcBFXb82XxtuboiCmcy4kOrPUDiEebQtOyVEdX5tdzRHQYIp gHg78qo30h+moVKUM6DhXpTD8Xkjok0SNyuQDd3ln/mB452YWsBkHoR1Qm9sjM6cAWoD lRVC9LAadWmjhni8sNQ127wPNyAyIx3GyNxf3ujkdHu3Ffukhl0z8BEif8p2C7hcnE8p ji57pKm42SCjkggwwMPWwhyhWa1oV3Qvd0RHcy3eHXnWNyymGnC8t4P+DRPKhgcFea3/ MhKQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AKwxytfaQGhFYTXh5BerSjVVRDPV8zA6eMpZYd1XYUymT+uGOVwvfl7G 2igvnDmpLsQhyGbF/C1t//sG0g==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ACJfBotwoXGW/Lu0dDb4b71WleQVGOi96v/970YgnWAxbY7nHlRTLGIQkJDtYLa0WfrqyJI/5DZRpw==
X-Received: by 10.55.127.197 with SMTP id a188mr26762173qkd.106.1515624317884; Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cavall.lan (c-24-60-163-103.hsd1.nh.comcast.net. [24.60.163.103]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id n190sm11461850qkd.97.2018.01.10.14.45.16 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 10 Jan 2018 14:45:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <F1CF4761-37D2-4E38-A0B1-C59A13C45136@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_A4D8B805-000A-464A-A7E0-B52B751C1C0B"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.2 \(3445.5.20\))
Date: Wed, 10 Jan 2018 17:45:15 -0500
In-Reply-To: <d178085afc214003aaaa673571749781@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
Cc: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>, "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
To: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <volz@cisco.com>
References: <c75fcb03185b49bab003dfa5e6a8f795@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <0fd9d640-55d0-d7a2-eb06-a6de681b5491@gmail.com> <76942a0f18d24473a8fe54be29f4b4b8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <C804CF0C-1826-41BC-8BAA-4B57F63834B9@fugue.com> <ffa2ac46b00b4f12a89c8e14656502c8@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <D463E9C1-F0B8-4F0F-B6D6-3D08CC3A3934@fugue.com> <e7925ca38e954eca9ad7ea6924b6da01@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com> <8D440DD0-06BA-45F3-A919-E1CCC0C18206@fugue.com> <d178085afc214003aaaa673571749781@XCH-ALN-003.cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.5.20)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/qbxaIg1lP2xJg2QKvy4D_UR5m0Q>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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, 10 Jan 2018 22:45:21 -0000

LGTM!


> On Jan 10, 2018, at 5:43 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi:
>  
> OK, dropped #3 (while it is standard practice, it might not always be obvious to all so I thought it was useful) and added the “or sponsored by an appropriate AD”.
>  
> So, I think we are now with the following proposed re-charter text:
>  
> The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
> for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
> IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other parameters. DHCPv4 is
> currently a Draft Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.
> DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG
> plans to advance the protocol to full standard.
>  
> The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions.
> Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard
> mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol
> extension and thus are generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
> options should be defined within their respective WGs or sponsored by an
> appropriate AD and reviewed by DHCP experts in the Internet Area
> Directorate. However, if such options require protocol extensions or new
> semantics, the protocol extension work must be done in the DHC WG.
>  
> The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
>  
> 1. Informational documents providing operational or implementation advice
> about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for
> operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients, and relay
> agents.
>  
> 2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
> (that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
> considerations are properly documented.
>  
> 3. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
> an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
>  
> -          Bernie
>  
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:mellon@fugue.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 10, 2018 5:32 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com>
> Cc: Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering
>  
> On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:43 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com <mailto:volz@cisco.com>> wrote:
> OK, that leaves us saying nothing about this particular issue and it will still be up to Suresh (or the then current AD) to deal with new options work that wasn’t done elsewhere. But I guess that isn’t “in our charter” to resolve. Though we could work in the following minor change if we wanted to attempt to at least capture the spirit - “within their respective WGs or sponsored by an appropriate AD”.
>  
> Yup.
>  
> I think you could really just delete point 3—it's just repeating things that are standard practice.