IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt

Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com> Thu, 06 February 2014 01:05 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 477041A016D for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3] autolearn=ham
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 BBQWM7P2-QD7 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from exprod7og126.obsmtp.com (exprod7og126.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.206]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3ED021A011B for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob126.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUvLf5vtqbChLM87zjrnObuPkOWSjdK20@postini.com; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 17:05:42 PST
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 644E61B82EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-02.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.132]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A77C190052; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:42 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.10.40] (192.168.1.10) by CAS-02.WIN.NOMINUM.COM (192.168.1.101) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.3.158.1; Wed, 5 Feb 2014 17:05:42 -0800
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.1 \(1827\))
From: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
In-Reply-To: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE598AB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
Date: Wed, 05 Feb 2014 20:05:39 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-ID: <D2BF8148-AC65-42A2-92AD-5A5CFD73A440@nominum.com>
References: <20140204093611.4914.51694.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <52F0F3C2.20807@viagenie.ca> <4B094E1A-431F-4F2B-9004-37D6D12BE8F8@nominum.com> <52F0F8F4.4060905@viagenie.ca> <EEEC392B-7B7B-4AAE-BE24-AEC944DFABFA@nominum.com> <CF17B34D.17390%praspati@cisco.com> <07C71B9E-3D2B-4714-9A5C-67C51B9F028F@nominum.com> <CF183474.17FEB%praspati@cisco.com> <48ADF973-C96B-415D-BA95-0EE5311114E2@nominum.com> <CF184487.18206%praspati@cisco.com> <D3DCF5DD-549F-4F73-B33E-8F6A428606BD@nominum.com> <52F25607.8060706@s-carlsen.dk> <1C267188-BEF2-47C5-9347-D50132FF6D73@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE594E4@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <50C073ED-1B32-45FE-947E-BAA451353D4D@nominum.com> <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AE598AB@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com>
To: Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1827)
X-Originating-IP: [192.168.1.10]
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] I-D Action: draft-ietf-dhc-conn-status-00.txt
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 06 Feb 2014 01:05:44 -0000

On Feb 5, 2014, at 7:12 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <volz@cisco.com> wrote:
> If you won't allow it on the Charter, we will have to drop it. (That might even be the outcome if it does go on the charter.) From the call for adoption, there was support for this work and no one against it.

It's not covered by the current charter.   We could charter DHC to do the work, but is the working group enthusiastic enough about it to go to that trouble?   I'm sorry for being a sticky wicket after you've already adopted, but I think you need to get some working group who is competent to evaluate the proposal to look at it before DHC does any serious work on it.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email