Re: [dhcwg] Draft for Re-chartering

[Tomek Mrugalski <[e-mail]>]

W dniu 27.11.2017 o 03:36, Bernie Volz (volz) pisze:
>
> Hi:
>
>  
>
> At IETF-100 in Singapore we discussed re-chartering the WG (see
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/100/materials/slides-100-dhc-dhc-recharter/).
> There were a few minor comments regarding that proposed text and a
> revised text based on those comments is below.
>
>  
>
> Please comment on suggested changes/improvements.
>
>  
>
> Begin Re-charter Text -->
>
> The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
>
> for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses
>
> and TCP/IP protocol stack parameters. DHCPv4 is currently a Draft
>
I would rephrase the first sentence as:

The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack parameters and other parameters.

Saying that everything being configurable by DHCP is a TCP procotol
stack parameter is misleading. We also configure services and parameters
that have nothing to do with TCP/IP stack.
Also, referring to the stack as TCP/IP sounds very 80s. IP protocol
stack sounds better. There are documented cases of DHCP users who used UDP.

> Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132. DHCPv6 is currently
>
> a Proposed Standard and is being updated and the WG plans to advance the
>
> protocol to full standard.
>
>  
>
> The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions.
>
> Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard
>
> mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol
>
> extension and thus are generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
>
> options should be defined within their respective WGs and reviewed by
>
> DHCP experts in the Internet Area Directorate. However, if such options
>
> require protocol extensions or new semantics, the protocol extension
>
> work must be done in the DHC WG. Or, when no respective WG exists, the
>
> DHC WG may take on the option definitions work with approval from the
>
> responsible Area Director.
>
>  
>
> The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
>
>  
>
> 1. Develop documents that help explain operational considerations for
>
> the wider community if and as needed.
>
I would reword this item slightly:
Develop documents that are related to operational considerations of DHCP
for the wider community if and as needed.

There are two changes here. First, "explain" is removed as we may do
more than just explain. We could recommend some practices or discourage
people from doing certain things. Also, defining configuration
mechanisms, such as YANG models, is part of the operational
considerations. Second, without DHCP added, some may take it out of
context and say that DHC can make any operational consideration
regarding things other than DHCP. This is particularly likely with the
"wider community".

> 2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
>
> (that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
>
> considerations are properly documented.
>
During Singapore meeting we had a discussion about defining IOT options.
The general suggestion was that some external organization (IIRC OASIS
was mentioned) is better suited for such work. This approach would be
similar to what DOCSIS did for cable modems. Do we want to explicitly
mention "external organizations" in here?

The remaining text looks good to me.

Tomek