Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice

SM <> Sat, 26 October 2013 16:53 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 46E3E21F9F0E for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:53:00 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.571
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.571 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.028, BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id G3bHi8OI0qhT for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:470:f329:1::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id A65BA21F9EDB for <>; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:52:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (IDENT:sm@localhost []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r9QGqcif008838; Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:52:42 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail2010; t=1382806368; bh=flJ4+Ek4Ql/2C8sS4fkaAKwFq76Cby1T3UMMxCB1xNo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=Nsl+PPcsGJJw75Gqo3xY/7d/Uz+Tr2xbY9hVJOMx/4J5M53VIFwxq3sTt21PzM1ZC Cp9Ia96s8mycUcvy2fNvqNe/GWR/hETGVZYOQIpCTg4fhAH/HO06e9FobKqq6Zlg1S 7Nz6FNAvjdnTjNNy9k370QefzA1UZK1BnFek/OZA=
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1382806368;; bh=flJ4+Ek4Ql/2C8sS4fkaAKwFq76Cby1T3UMMxCB1xNo=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:Cc:In-Reply-To:References; b=GoUTXHAEu24CO6BZZSGeJv7YKgMaiorK12vhxIDnZV0wqxWZJjxbsKVacha9VxNZc 1klUT/uyLYfHzoiC2Qp79MIAVCfAOOXtPQiKfuEpMEuC0vLNhsvGfRYPJf1NcYzLpm ljrC4KaZgt9BG4uPxV+Rr39VM2pkR65NAm4qYxck=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 09:51:06 -0700
To: Barry Leiba <>, Ted Lemon <>
From: SM <>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice
In-Reply-To: <CALaySJJR+XXbPGtzXEAOZKNTSy_HZFh6neGUiamjPay=J1W5pQ@mail.g>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format="flowed"
Cc:, Cullen Jennings <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 26 Oct 2013 16:53:00 -0000

At 08:36 25-10-2013, Barry Leiba wrote:
>Third, your second paragraph above is really out of line.  So let's
>back away a bit and look at the picture we're painting.

I looked at the Last Call comments and I found that the discussion 
has been between Cullen Jennings and Ted Lemon.  The initial message 
was addressed to OPS ADs.  It is IETF practice to watch the fireworks 
in such cases.  Joe Abley commented about the DNSSEC validation 
issue.  There was a long thread recently about that on some IETF mailing list.

The discussion then got down to process and there was a mention of 
the working group charter.  There was a comment about IETF 
Consensus.  There was then a question which was similar to a question 
on a different thread which was a little controversial.

This is the usual IETF recipe for discussions taking the wrong 
turn.  I'll step back a little.  The first version of this draft was 
posted in June 2007.  The intended status of that draft was 
Informational.  The intended status was change to Standards Track in 
December 2012.  It was changed to BCP in June 2013.

The picture being painted is that cross-area review is lacking.