Re: [dhcwg] Adrian Farrel's Discuss on draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12: (with DISCUSS)

[Ralph Droms <[e-mail]>]

Addressing Adrian's DISCUSS, which relates closely to Pete's DISCUSS and Peter's COMMENT, I suggest that the document be retitled along the lines of Adrian's suggestion, "Description of Cisco Systems' Subnet Allocation Option for DHCP" to clarify the content of the document.

- Ralph

On Jun 21, 2011, at 9:33 AM 6/21/11, Adrian Farrel wrote:

> Adrian Farrel has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-dhc-subnet-alloc-12: Discuss
> 
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
> email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
> introductory paragraph, however.)
> 
> Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
> for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I'm afraid I agree with Pete's Discuss so strongly that I will raise it as my own Discuss.
> 
> Either this document should be recast as "Description of Cisco Systems' Subnet Allocation Option for DHCP" (in which case Informational is acceptable) such that it is obvious what and why people might be implementing. Or it should be put on to the Standards Track.
> 
> For the avoidance of doubt, I do not object to documents describing what is in the field and allowing people to decide to interoperate with that. In particular, in the 3942 context, this is good and proper. But I do not like the way this document sits on the fence between defining "a new DHCP option" and being Informaitonal.
> 
> 
> 
>