Re: [dhcwg] L2RA

[Bernie Volz <[e-mail]>]

Hi:

You are always “free” to submit an individual draft. We would need to start the draft process over at the “beginning” (individual draft, discuss, submit for adoption, …) as 11 years ago is a long period of inactivity and doesn’t make sense to just pickup where it left off.

Whether the WG will have interest or not remains to be seen.

It is worth to research as to why it was dropped - especially if it was for technical reasons that could not easily be overcome - rather than just loss of interest because of no good applicablity of the technology to real world scenarios (assuming there may now be some).

Though I will add that given the 30+ years that DHCPv4 has been around, the bar may be set high to add this now?

- Bernie Volz

> On Aug 30, 2023, at 9:44 AM, Claudio Porfiri <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> 
> Hi Bernie and Timothy,
> We have recently found a new scenario driven by O-RAN and CPRI specifications where a L2 ethernet switch needs a L2 Relay Agent with DHCPv4.
> There’s no IETF definition of that scenario, but a draft exists https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-dhc-l2ra-06 expired 11 years ago that was aimed at describing L2RA.
> The existing rfc6221 has a reference to the L2RA work and even Broadband Forum’s TR-101 complains that a L2RA didn’t exist.
> Do you think that is possible to resume that draft and proceed forwards, or even include the L2RA specific parts in a new revision of rfc3046?
>  
> Thanks and best regards,
> Claudio Porfiri