Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Respond by Dec 18

[Mathias Samuelson <[e-mail]>]

Bernie, all,

I just wanted to provide some context as for why I think that this work should be adopted.

Most of the CSP customers I work with either operate IPv4 only, or dual-stack IPv4 / IPv6 networks or is progressing in that direction. Native IPv6 and more specifically IPv6-only networks seem to be an outliner *at this point*.

What I also see is that all of our CSP customers using our DHCP server for dual-stack service use the same DHCP servers for both stacks. It would be interesting to hear if others have a different experience, but at least with the data I have the CSPs want to run DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 in the same servers.

>From that point of view alone, I think it makes a lot of sense to adopt the active leasequery work for both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6, or not at all (but I think we should do this work because there is value in having a standardized way of getting a stream of lease binding updates from the DHCP servers).

Someone who will find a use for active leasequery is likely to find a use for it for both stacks. The corollary would be that I think that doing this work for just one or the other of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 is going to be relatively useless in reality. :-)

Taking my product management hat on, I think it would also suck to be forced into inconsistent feature sets for DHCPv4 and DHCPv6. ;-)

Mathias

On Dec 19, 2013, at 3:59 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) <[e-mail]> wrote:

> While we are now technically past the respond by date, I will make one last plea for comments regarding adopting this as a WG item.
> 
> We did receive responses from two non-authors, but I don't really feel that is strong enough to consider adopting this. No one objected, so that does weigh in favor of adopting it.
> 
> Because I am a co-author, I will leave it for Tomek to decide whether this document should be adopted. I will ask him to hold off announcing results until Monday, December 23 (so send your response by Sunday).
> 
> Again, if you haven't responded and have a few minutes, please consider whether the WG should adopt or not. We did adopt the DHCPv6 version of this work, so it would not be a stretch to adopt for DHCPv4 as the motivation is identical.
> 
> - Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: dhcwg [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Bernie Volz (volz)
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:47 AM
> To: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); [e-mail]
> Subject: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02 - Respond by Dec 18
> 
> Hi all:
> 
> This is a WG Call for Adoption for http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02. This call is being initiated to determine whether there is WG consensus to adopt this work as DHC WG item. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on December 18, 2013.
> 
> This call is being initiated because during the call for adoption for draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00, which was just adopted, several people asked about the related DHCPv4 work. Kim republished the DHCPv4 draft (with minor updates) as it had expired a while ago. So, we are seeking input as to whether the WG should now also work on the DHCPv4 version of active leasequery, given that the DHCPv6 version was adopted.
> 
> Regards,
> Tomek & Bernie
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear) 
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 11:25 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Cc: Kim Kinnear (kkinnear); Bernie Volz (volz); Tomek Mrugalski
> Subject: New Version Notification for draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
> 
> 
> Folks,
> 
> During the adoption discussion about DHCPv6 Active Leasequery there was some discussion about having a corresponding DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability.  If there is sufficient interest in a DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability to parallel the DHCPv6 capability that was adopted as a DHC WG work item recently, then we can decide whether or not we want to have two drafts moving toward two RFC's, or combine them into one draft.
> 
> But the first question is whether or not there is sufficient interest in having a DHCPv4 Active Leasequery capability at all!
> 
> In order to help decide this question, I have updated the existing
> DHCPv4 Active Leasequery draft from a couple of years ago, and resubmitted it as an individual submission -- as recommended by Bernie and Tomek.
> 
> Below you can find the information on how to find this new draft.
> 
> Regards -- Kim
> 
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: <[e-mail]>
>> Subject: New Version Notification for 
>> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> Date: December 4, 2013 10:01:03 AM EST
>> To: Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>, Mark Stapp <[e-mail]>, Kim 
>> Kinnear <[e-mail]>, Neil Russell <[e-mail]>
>> 
>> 
>> A new version of I-D, 
>> draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> has been successfully submitted by Kim Kinnear and posted to the IETF 
>> repository.
>> 
>> Filename:	 draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery
>> Revision:	 02
>> Title:		 Active DHCPv4 Lease Query
>> Creation date:	 2013-12-04
>> Group:		 Individual Submission
>> Number of pages: 22
>> URL:             http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02.txt
>> Status:          http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery
>> Htmlized:        http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02
>> Diff:            http://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url2=draft-kinnear-dhc-dhcpv4-active-leasequery-02
>> 
>> Abstract:
>>  The Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv4 (DHCPv4) has been
>>  extended with a Leasequery capability that allows a client to request
>>  information about DHCPv4 bindings.  That mechanism is limited to
>>  queries for individual bindings.  In some situations individual
>>  binding queries may not be efficient, or even possible.  In addition,
>>  continuous update of an external client with Leasequery data is
>>  sometimes desired. This document expands on the DHCPv4 Leasequery
>>  protocol, and allows for active transfer of near real-time DHCPv4
>>  address binding information data via TCP.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> Please note that it may take a couple of minutes from the time of 
>> submission until the htmlized version and diff are available at tools.ietf.org.
>> 
>> The IETF Secretariat
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

Mathias Samuelson | Sr. Product Manager
mobile: [phone] | office: +1.650.381.6225
Nominum | www.nominum.com | [e-mail]