Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6

Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com> Thu, 24 January 2002 23:49 UTC

Received: from optimus.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA10055 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:49:39 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) id SAA02623 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:49:42 -0500 (EST)
Received: from optimus.ietf.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01163; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:11:18 -0500 (EST)
Received: from ietf.org (odin [132.151.1.176]) by optimus.ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1) with ESMTP id SAA01132 for <dhcwg@ns.ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:11:16 -0500 (EST)
Received: from funnel.cisco.com (funnel.cisco.com [161.44.168.79]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id SAA09261 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:11:11 -0500 (EST)
Received: from rdroms-w2k.cisco.com (rtp-vpn1-5.cisco.com [10.82.224.5]) by funnel.cisco.com (8.8.5-Cisco.1/8.6.5) with ESMTP id SAA18402 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:10:43 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20020124180037.00b85388@funnel.cisco.com>
X-Sender: rdroms@funnel.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2002 18:01:35 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Ralph Droms <rdroms@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Options in base doc for DHCPv6
In-Reply-To: <55537890-111B-11D6-A6AA-00039317663C@nominum.com>
References: <66F66129A77AD411B76200508B65AC69B4CE13@EAMBUNT705>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 1.0
Precedence: bulk
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org

Ted,

Yes, we are wasting a lot of time arguing about this.  Why don't you just 
agree with me?

:-)

- Ralph

At 04:40 PM 1/24/2002 -0600, Ted Lemon wrote:
>>I fully support Ralph in this. I want to make sure we can get the base 
>>draft through as that will likely take some time for the IESG to digest 
>>and we don't want a small issue to hold up this main work.
>
>AFAIK we do not have a problem.   We are wasting substantial time arguing 
>about this.   Why don't we just send it to the IESG and see what they say?
>    If they push back hard on an option, *then* we can take it out of the 
> draft.   Or do we think that if we just take out all the "non-essential" 
> options, IESG will pass this without comment?   :')
>


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