Re: [dhcwg] draft-chowdhury-dhc-bcmcv[46]-option-01.txt

Margaret - these drafts are sort of falling into a crack.  I don't know of
another WG that can evaluate the requirements.  The information and option
format is trivial and the WG can review them.  The WG responded to 3GPP2 to
prefer VIVSO, and 3GPP2 came back to express preference for RFC 2132-style
options.  The dhc WG chairs have not been able to get any additional
justification from 3GPP2, and we have been getting pressure to move forward
quickly.  Seems at this point a WG last call is a good way to "call the
question" and get the discussion started so the various issues can be aired.

- Ralph

At 09:38 AM 2/3/2005 -0500, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

>You know, I am still a bit confused about these drafts...
>
>Do you (Ralph and Stig) actually think that there is appropriate expertise 
>in the DHCP WG to review these drafts?  If not, where is the group that 
>actually needs these options (the subject matter experts) and have they 
>reviewed the drafts?
>
>I realize that 3GPP wants DHCP options to configure BCMCV (whatever that 
>is), but that doesn' t mean (IMO) that we can or should completely bypass 
>the usual DHCP WG process...
>
>Margaret
>
>
>At 8:49 AM -0500 2/3/05, Ralph Droms wrote:
>>As we have been asked to expedite our review of these drafts for the
>>upcoming 3GPP2 standard, we need to have a WG last call on both drafts.  If
>>there are no objections, I will start a last call for each draft starting
>>2005-02-07.
>>
>>- Ralph
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>dhcwg mailing list
>>dhcwg@ietf.org
>>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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