Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt

Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com> Sat, 21 December 2002 15:51 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [132.151.1.19] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08198 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:51:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gBLFsGX03972 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:54:16 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBLFsGv03969 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:54:16 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08171 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:50:36 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBLFpSv03912; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:51:30 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org [132.151.1.176]) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gBLFnOv03856 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:49:24 -0500
Received: from e33.co.us.ibm.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org [132.151.6.1]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id KAA08127 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:45:44 -0500 (EST)
Received: from westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.194.22]) by e33.co.us.ibm.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gBLFmfZn028756; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:48:41 -0500
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (sig-9-65-244-208.mts.ibm.com [9.65.244.208]) by westrelay01.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.3/NCO/VER6.4) with ESMTP id gBLFmemc091350; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 08:48:40 -0700
Received: from cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (narten@localhost) by cichlid.adsl.duke.edu (8.11.6/8.9.3) with ESMTP id gBLFlrg07073; Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:47:53 -0500
Message-Id: <200212211547.gBLFlrg07073@cichlid.adsl.duke.edu>
To: Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com>
cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-04.txt
In-Reply-To: Message from Paul Duffy <paduffy@cisco.com> of "Fri, 20 Dec 2002 15:39:42 EST." <4.3.2.7.2.20021220151206.02af5130@funnel.cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Dec 2002 10:47:53 -0500
From: Thomas Narten <narten@us.ibm.com>
Sender: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
Errors-To: dhcwg-admin@ietf.org
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.12
Precedence: bulk
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>

> Is the intent here that IETF wants to insure the sub-option number DOES 
> change (from experimental to official) when a CCC sub-option draft reaches 
> RFC?

The intent is that the option be reviewed by the community and
finalized *before* it becomes either a de facto standard, or one that
cablelabs has made a standard through its certification waves. Once it
is in effect a standard,

 - there is little incentive to finish the document
 - reasonable requests to change the option are rejected as "too late,
   it's already implemented"
 - the WG is stuck with a document they  may not like, but that they
   can't do anything about.

This is not the way we get good options defined.  What we need to
figure out how to do is get the IETF to review/bless the option
*before* it is needed by cablelabs.

> Forcing a change in the implementations?  If that is the case, then 
> this discussion is over and Cablelabs will need to agree to your proposal.

Note, the "change" we are talking about is potentially very
minor. Just use a different option number. If it is known in advance
that it will change, software can be designed to allow it to be
changed later.

My real concern with the above is the sense that "we can't change even
the option number", which to me means that if the IETF asks for
changes in the option, its too late  as well, since such changes would
be even *more* work to make. Right?

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