Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022

Sheng JIANG <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn> Mon, 14 November 2022 04:22 UTC

Return-Path: <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
X-Original-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 470FFC14CE54 for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:22:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -6.893
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-6.893 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MSGID_FROM_MTA_HEADER=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([50.223.129.194]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 8ESlcl_MYLtQ for <dhcwg@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:22:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtpbgeu1.qq.com (smtpbgeu1.qq.com [52.59.177.22]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BB671C14F739 for <dhcwg@ietf.org>; Sun, 13 Nov 2022 20:22:20 -0800 (PST)
X-QQ-GoodBg: 2
X-BAN-DOWNLOAD: 1
X-BAN-SHARE: 1
X-QQ-SSF: 00400000000000F0
X-QQ-FEAT: ih8wnZWEUfUhc+43BqRnPM1sqA+h8zUXaxdnngvKfxEvGRb4BTvKTbJsTbAvF Erqt1N0yFVhQKIfWkfW0thiIKdGDlJYcg4MsTE4/YoWw0g+ZQiSJJ7P7R1MOC5hI/gXKyLn OR67XtLgawRrwNmpSBrh8aFMaOCl4PV6W0Zc6VROVnCkXPrNJI0Hp68ZxBwRqg2MYT0U4K0 AJAbcI+jtzCqBbhThg5pDsWwYgemj/vNcqBn6W2evi6MCDZmBist+57s/HakKhXTjZD5YGB DOJZy1KFe7xEzc/tkICpxZe1+MsYHUq41A3ZxA5lz61m+sHgVM7MsoJCJkWZYHCzFFauqxq ebBPygXt20otwc8Wp37Xi/K/diJDzpYjPhKP4zesyMUfr3K6SpfA41XfnstgfioGBtT0/FT 6qayLw2YYpxDtLYEki/eY7Wd3LoMZgvMZjFvgRTxDH0=
X-QQ-BUSINESS-ORIGIN: 2
X-Originating-IP: 221.223.21.154
X-QQ-STYLE:
X-QQ-mid: maileng8t1668399731t6598219
From: Sheng JIANG <shengjiang@bupt.edu.cn>
To: Bernie Volz <bevolz@gmail.com>, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com>
Cc: dhcwg <dhcwg@ietf.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_6371C273_1AA0B7A0_7A621C50"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:22:11 +0800
X-Priority: 3
Message-ID: <tencent_2B8AF1767B4D57850ABD4A33@qq.com>
X-QQ-MIME: TCMime 1.0 by Tencent
X-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
X-QQ-Mailer: QQMail 2.x
References: <CAJgLMKtXL1oXyzEoVcGdY19TDxPKcuiU6o0A7yt7h0njD=9d5Q@mail.gmail.com> <0B4512A7-1006-4DB2-8B46-F92B6F13E0F8@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <0B4512A7-1006-4DB2-8B46-F92B6F13E0F8@gmail.com>
X-QQ-ReplyHash: 1890437027
X-QQ-SENDSIZE: 520
Received: from qq.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.qq.com (ESMTP) with SMTP id ; Mon, 14 Nov 2022 12:22:13 +0800 (CST)
Feedback-ID: maileng:bupt.edu.cn:qybglogicsvr:qybglogicsvr3
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dhcwg/zbQpFvszX94P9ggfVd6hDPWhW2Q>
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022
X-BeenThere: dhcwg@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: Dynamic Host Configuration <dhcwg.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dhcwg>, <mailto:dhcwg-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Mon, 14 Nov 2022 04:22:25 -0000

I support the adoption as a co-author. I cannot see a single reason why not. This document is mainly moving DHCPv6 from proposed standard into BCP. The enhancements are also based on the practise from last several years.


Sheng&nbsp;
&nbsp;
------------------&nbsp;Original&nbsp;------------------
From: &nbsp;"Bernie&nbsp;Volz"<bevolz@gmail.com&gt;;
Date: &nbsp;Thu, Nov 3, 2022 04:28 AM
To: &nbsp;"Timothy Winters"<tim@qacafe.com&gt;; 
Cc: &nbsp;"dhcwg"<dhcwg@ietf.org&gt;; 
Subject: &nbsp;Re: [dhcwg] Adoption Call for draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00- Respond by Nov 18, 2022

&nbsp;

Hi:

Not sure how much it counts as I did many of the edits from RFC8415 for this bis draft, but I strongly support adoption by the WG of this document.


It would be great to get input from others on the changes as well as the few areas I had pointed out when announcing publication if the draft to the WG:


A few areas to consider during your review: - Should we reduce some of the background material, such as sections 1.1 and 1.2 and/or 3. - Should we remove all text related to even checking for unicast transmissions and even deprecate the UseMulticast status code. I think the only case that can end up with unicast at a 8415bis server would be if the server had been sending Server-Unicast option and is then upgraded as existing (pre8415bis clients) may then unicast … but likely if the upgraded server just accepted the message, there would not really be any harm. A 8415bis client that always multicasts should never run into problems (and thus get the UseMulticast status). The 8415bis server would never need to check if unicast. - The Acknowledgements section has XXX, as (your) names will be inserted here as work on the document continues.
- Bernie VolzOn Oct 20, 2022, at 4:50 AM, Timothy Winters <tim@qacafe.com&gt; wrote:


Hello:


We would like initiating a WG call for adoption on draft-dhcwg-dhc-rfc8415bis-00.&nbsp; This document is an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification with the intention of advancing to Internet standard.


This starts the call for adoption of this document. Please respond by November 18, 2022.


Thanks in advance for your consideration of whether the WG should or should not adopt this document as a work item.



Thanks,
Tim and Bernie

 _______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg