Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00 - Ends November 25, 2013

Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com> Tue, 19 November 2013 18:31 UTC

Return-Path: <kkinnear@cisco.com>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5D13A1AE119 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:31:46 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.026
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.026 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.525, SPF_PASS=-0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zJCx09EBm6u3 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:31:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: from rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com [173.37.86.79]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D54361AE121 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 10:31:44 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=1237; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1384885899; x=1386095499; h=subject:mime-version:from:in-reply-to:date:cc: content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=bthjO72iyCzBFQYRKuvxxq+lda+6zx1dSnDa3uPODnQ=; b=PiGzsP7jjwujqoHTVoEv2XjOUa2V6bCEuEHjRTTzoFEcxdRAgK/zeA1B N3xpWAOQQoGMMNRh4sFVF5wbXywG76ES7TtQDbGqaWsIElW79uuY691vs 97yBa57myd/XctmYvgUidhtkNJLNwGCSehj+e8PI0XqgZqXnBJR9Ef/K5 U=;
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.93,730,1378857600"; d="scan'208";a="286147813"
Received: from rcdn-core-6.cisco.com ([173.37.93.157]) by rcdn-iport-8.cisco.com with ESMTP; 19 Nov 2013 18:31:38 +0000
Received: from [161.44.65.120] ([161.44.65.120]) by rcdn-core-6.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id rAJIVbpM017342; Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:31:38 GMT
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1278)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
From: Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <FC352FE2-8739-4914-9069-00CB3D7CFFB7@nominum.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 13:31:45 -0500
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5D669F43-F675-445C-AE7B-939D4FB35C20@cisco.com>
References: <489D13FBFA9B3E41812EA89F188F018E1AD89A8C@xmb-rcd-x04.cisco.com> <28184790-4053-4272-BDE5-E3E9393193E7@nominum.com> <FC352FE2-8739-4914-9069-00CB3D7CFFB7@nominum.com>
To: Ted Lemon <ted.lemon@nominum.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1278)
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>, Kim Kinnear <kkinnear@cisco.com>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] WG Adoption Call - draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00 - Ends November 25, 2013
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcwg/>
List-Post: <mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2013 18:31:46 -0000

Well, that makes two (or three, counting me) that think 
active leasequery for v4 would also be useful in addition to
v6.

In the short intro I did at IETF, I gave two choices for
moving forward with active leasequery for v4:

  (a) Create combined DHCPv4/DHCPv6 active leasequery draft
  (b) Keep as separate drafts (one for v4 and v6)

Any preferences from either Ted or Mathias (or anyone
else) on this question? I probably lean toward the combined 
draft myself.

I'm not assuming that this would be adopted as a WG work item, of
course, but I just wanted to see where we were on this question.

Thanks -- Kim

On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:57 PM, Ted Lemon wrote:

> On Nov 19, 2013, at 12:00 PM, Mathias Samuelson <Mathias.Samuelson@nominum.com> wrote:
>> I would def supporting adopting this work if it was made broader to support DHCPv4 as well.
> 
> FWIW, I think DHCPv4 support would be useful too.   I didn't say anything about it at the meeting because I was on the fence, but upon further consideration it seems to me that it's useful to do.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> dhcwg@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg