[Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery: DISCUSS by Jari Arkko
Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net> Thu, 21 February 2008 09:04 UTC
Return-Path: <ecrit-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-ecrit-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ecrit-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 113C528CA20; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.566
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.566 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.129, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_ORG=0.611, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id yoaF+ss3sgKI; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from core3.amsl.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2303028C9C6; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:50 -0800 (PST)
X-Original-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ecrit@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 84D9028C9A9 for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:49 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id VfaatJceBNDF for <ecrit@core3.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail.gmx.net (mail.gmx.net [213.165.64.20]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 41C4528C9FE for <ecrit@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Feb 2008 01:04:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Feb 2008 09:04:41 -0000
Received: from proxy1-nsn.nsn-inter.net (EHLO [217.115.75.229]) [217.115.75.229] by mail.gmx.net (mp025) with SMTP; 21 Feb 2008 10:04:41 +0100
X-Authenticated: #29516787
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX19aehRGXJFacu3uS46fqVk8wubjsntYCUjuPeVc31 0wXQmvRTV6IRlV
Message-ID: <47BD3EA7.4050109@gmx.net>
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2008 11:04:39 +0200
From: Hannes Tschofenig <Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net>
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.9 (Windows/20071031)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ECRIT <ecrit@ietf.org>
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
Subject: [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery: DISCUSS by Jari Arkko
X-BeenThere: ecrit@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
Reply-To: Hannes.Tschofenig@gmx.net
List-Id: <ecrit.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:ecrit@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit>, <mailto:ecrit-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ecrit-bounces@ietf.org
*Document:* draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery *Version:* 02 *Commented by:* Jari Arkko *Comment:* First, a process problem: We have had a model for DHCP option development that involves an effort in the WG that is interested in the functionality (in this case ECRIT) but also review by DHC WG. This is accomplished through simultaneous WGLCs in both WGs. In my search of DHC WG archives, there's nothing on this document. We need that review, and I would suggest starting a WGLC in the DHC WG now, followed possibly by discussion in Philadelphia meeting (if needed) so that we can get the review done but do not lose much time. I apologize for not catching this earlier. The DHC chairs and me try to remind WG chairs and the iesg of this policy on a regular basis, maybe we should send another reminder. The DHC WG also has an early warning system review team, not sure if this caught their attention. Or have I missed some discussion? If review has happened, I have no problem. Technical content: Section 5 (DHCPv6) talks about how DHCPv4 clients can request options. Is this text in the right place? https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery/comment/77909/? *Document:* draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery *Version:* 02 *Commented by:* Jari Arkko *Comment:* Like David Hankins, I wondered about the expression "Only onee domain name MUST be present ...". I would suggest a rewrite to "Exactly one domain MUST be present ...", possibly followed by the explanation that anything after the last zero by should be ignored. By the way, I was confused about the level of DHC WG review, because (a) the writeup did not say anything about it and (2) the mails about the WGLC on DHC WG did not have the draft or even WG name on the title. https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery/comment/77912/? *Document:* draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery *Version:* 02 *Commented by:* Jari Arkko *Comment:* Section 5 (DHCPv6) talks about how DHCPv4 clients can request options. Is this text in the right place? Section 4 seems the correct place. David Hankins' comments on Section 3 limit "254" have not been addressed. David sent his comments on the DHC WG list on April 27, 2007. https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery/comment/77911/? _______________________________________________ Ecrit mailing list Ecrit@ietf.org http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ecrit
- [Ecrit] draft-ietf-ecrit-dhc-lost-discovery: DISC… Hannes Tschofenig