IETF Logo Mail Archive

[dhcwg] advancing RFC8415

Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca> Sat, 16 January 2021 21:48 UTC

Return-Path: <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
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 6FC6D3A19F1 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:48:05 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 8E5vB-BAOJsn for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:48:03 -0800 (PST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca (tuna.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:3:216:3eff:fe7c:d1f3]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 205C13A19EF for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 13:48:02 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 189D2389A6 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:49:47 -0500 (EST)
Received: from tuna.sandelman.ca ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id RCCgAZDKH3YH for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:49:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sandelman.ca (obiwan.sandelman.ca [IPv6:2607:f0b0:f:2::247]) by tuna.sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9E2A9389A5 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:49:46 -0500 (EST)
Received: from localhost (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by sandelman.ca (Postfix) with ESMTP id A4407BCA for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:48:01 -0500 (EST)
From: Michael Richardson <mcr+ietf@sandelman.ca>
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <BN7PR11MB2547CDD79B10E5D9D1523B53CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
References: <161072898498.9489.2611555465563748934@ietfa.amsl.com> <BN7PR11MB2547CDD79B10E5D9D1523B53CFA70@BN7PR11MB2547.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
X-Mailer: MH-E 8.6+git; nmh 1.7+dev; GNU Emacs 26.1
X-Face: $\n1pF)h^`}$H>Hk{L"x@)JS7<%Az}5RyS@k9X%29-lHB$Ti.V>2bi.~ehC0; <'$9xN5Ub# z!G,p`nR&p7Fz@^UXIn156S8.~^@MJ*mMsD7=QFeq%AL4m<nPbLgmtKK-5dC@#:k
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=-=-="; micalg="pgp-sha512"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Date: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 16:48:01 -0500
Message-ID: <30620.1610833681@localhost>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/sMzH4SCJJ56hXbUqK3v6rkskS7I>
Subject: [dhcwg] advancing RFC8415
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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: Sat, 16 Jan 2021 21:48:06 -0000

Bernie Volz \(volz\) <volz=40cisco.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
    > Tim and I concluded that the DHC WG will not meet (virtually) at IETF
    > 110. We decided a bit earlier than originally planned but we do not see
    > anything on the horizon that requires a session.

Good.  When I replied I found myself replying to dhc-chairs@ietf.org.
Was that intended?  I guess it was in the To:, and the WG was in some BCC?
Or maybe just some artifact of replying to the DT.

    > And, we plan to advance the base DHCPv6 protocol specification
    > (RFC8415) to full standard. As USGv6 DHCPv6 Standards Profiles were
    > updated recently (based on RFC8415), we will monitor the development
    > and results of testing suites related to these to determine when we
    > feel there is sufficient support for RFC8415 in implementations to move
    > forward.

Are you saying that you propose to advance RFC8415 via RFC6410 section 2.2
second last-paragraph process? i.e. an IESG four week Last Call?

Or are you saying that a 8415bis process will start, and we'll have to have
another round of excising anything that hasn't been tested?

--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@sandelman.ca>   . o O ( IPv6 IøT consulting )
           Sandelman Software Works Inc, Ottawa and Worldwide

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email