[dhcwg] Failover Draft Status

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Fri, 01 November 2002 16:37 UTC

Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf.org [] (may be forged)) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21372 for <dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:37:22 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from mailnull@localhost) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) id gA1GdJR22131 for dhcwg-archive@odin.ietf.org; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:39:19 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA1GdJv22128 for <dhcwg-web-archive@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:39:19 -0500
Received: from www1.ietf.org (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21358 for <dhcwg-web-archive@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:36:51 -0500 (EST)
Received: from www1.ietf.org (localhost.localdomain []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA1GbBv21139; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:37:11 -0500
Received: from ietf.org (odin.ietf.org []) by www1.ietf.org (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gA1GaUv20853 for <dhcwg@optimus.ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:36:30 -0500
Received: from rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (ietf-mx.ietf.org []) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with ESMTP id LAA21195 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:34:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from goblet.cisco.com (localhost []) by rtp-msg-core-1.cisco.com (8.12.2/8.12.2) with ESMTP id gA1GacBv016093; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:36:38 -0500 (EST)
Received: from KKINNEAR-W2K.cisco.com (ch2-dhcp150-66.cisco.com []) by goblet.cisco.com (Mirapoint) with ESMTP id ACA39407; Fri, 1 Nov 2002 11:36:20 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: kkinnear@goblet.cisco.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2
Date: Fri, 01 Nov 2002 11:36:18 -0500
To: dhcwg@ietf.org
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Cc: kkinnear@cisco.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Subject: [dhcwg] Failover Draft Status
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>


A quick update on the status of the failover draft, so we don't
have to spend time during the brief IETF DHC WG meeting
discussing it.


The failover draft, draft-ietf-dhc-failover-09.txt went to DHC WG
last call on 8/22/2001.  That last call ended 9/7/2001 with no
serious changes required to the draft.

Just about a year ago, in November of 2001 (and well after last
call was over), there was some discussion about the failover
draft on the list.  There were some clarifications made as a
result of these discussions in the draft, which was re-issued as
draft-ietf-dhc-failover-10.txt in January of 2002.

At that time it was ready for the next step, a review prior to
IETF last call.

During IETF in Yokohama during July this last summer (2002),
there was an offline discussion about some concerns that were
voiced by someone who had implemented the failover protocol.
These concerns were deemed sufficient to delay any review prior
to IETF last call, effectively blocking any further progress
of the draft until they were resolved in some way.

In early September 2002, when checking up on the draft's progress
toward IETF last call, I was informed that it was stalled due
to these concerns voiced at Yokohama.

I have been trying (with increasing insistence) since early
September to discover the details of these issues, but have been
unable to get a response in sufficient detail to deal
substantively with them.

Since the draft-ietf-dhc-failover-10.txt has expired, I have
submitted (today) draft-ietf-dhc-failover-11.txt, which has only
the most minor changes (e.g., expiration dates) from the existing
-10 draft.

What's next?

I expect to have an opportunity during the upcoming IETF in
Atlanta to dig deeper into the issues that have stalled progress
of the draft since the summer.

I will report on what I discover about the details of these
issues to this list soon after IETF in Atlanta is over.

We are not planning to spend any time on failover during the WG
meeting itself, which is the motivation behind this email.

I expect we will resolve these issues one way or the other in 30
to 60 days, and I expect to re-issue a new version of the
failover draft by January of 2003 (and possibly sooner).

At that point, depending on the resolution, we may require
another pass of DHC WG last call and we may not.  The point is to
get the protocol and the draft to be sufficiently correct to
allow people to build operational and interoperational failover
servers.  Once we have done that, we will see how many changes
were required and whether we need another WG last call.

Then we will move on from there.

Cheers -- Kim

dhcwg mailing list