Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

On Jan 10, 2018, at 2:06 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:
> I think to add any work not on our charter, we need approval from the WG’s responsible AD (not just any AD). And, the point of this was to say that if the option definition work wasn’t being done elsewhere, we would be the last resort place to do it (pending AD approval).

Right, my point is that the responsible AD for DHC is likely not the right AD to sponsor the kind of work that's being talked about.   IOW, this is simply not the right approach.

When we originally put the text in the charter, it hadn't sunk in that we weren't really solving the problem that we intended to solve when we required AD approval—the problem of people shopping their ideas to the DHC working group when they didn't get buy-in from the area where the work should have been done. Instead, we'd simply moved the burden for saying no from the working group to the AD.

Turning it around—requiring that an AD sponsor the work, actually solves the problem we were originally trying to solve.   It means that Suresh can now say "that's not in my area, so it doesn't make sense for me to sponsor it," instead of having to come up with a reason not to approve it.
 
> I’m OK with deleting “Or, when no respective WG exists, the“ since it would be covered in bullet point 3 – whether we remove the “and any option definition work” text from there or not. Perhaps fewer works are better, so do both? And, this basically matches the text in the current charter.

Yes, I know it does, but I think the current text is still problematic, hence the comment.
 
> Bullet point 1 is pretty vague.  What are "operational considerations?"
>  
> That text comes from the current charter (it was adjusted slightly by recent comments from Tomek). I think this is what RFC 7969 (Customizing DHCP Configuration on the Basis of Network Topology) was done “under” in the current charter. And, probably RFC 7844 (Anonymity Profiles for DHCP Clients). Do you think that we need to clarify this to say something like “operational considerations (such as those covered by RFC 7969 and 7844)”? Or?

I would make it more broad and detailed: "Informational documents providing operational or implementation advice about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients and relay agents."