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

Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> Fri, 25 October 2013 11:04 UTC

Return-Path: <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C88FC11E8387; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:12 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -106.589
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-106.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.010, BAYES_00=-2.599, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id LYIUFag65hW0; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from exprod7og110.obsmtp.com (exprod7og110.obsmtp.com [64.18.2.173]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id F0C8D11E80F8; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from shell-too.nominum.com ([64.89.228.229]) (using TLSv1) by exprod7ob110.postini.com ([64.18.6.12]) with SMTP ID DSNKUmpQJS6+MqwzC2Em+A70QsW7IQH5eByP@postini.com; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:06 PDT
Received: from archivist.nominum.com (archivist.nominum.com [64.89.228.108]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (Client CN "*.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by shell-too.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 70A7AF800A; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from webmail.nominum.com (cas-01.win.nominum.com [64.89.228.131]) (using TLSv1 with cipher RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "mail.nominum.com", Issuer "Go Daddy Secure Certification Authority" (verified OK)) by archivist.nominum.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 503EA190060; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:05 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from Ted.Lemon@nominum.com)
Received: from MBX-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.133]) by CAS-01.WIN.NOMINUM.COM ([64.89.228.131]) with mapi id 14.03.0158.001; Fri, 25 Oct 2013 04:04:05 -0700
From: Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com>
To: Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca>
Subject: Re: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice
Thread-Topic: Last Call: <draft-ietf-dhc-option-guidelines-14.txt> (Guidelines for Creating New DHCPv6 Options) to Best Current Practice
Thread-Index: AQHOxG6vvYfRrCcaWUK4N3Cm629TPZns9HaA///CyYCAAGBrgP//wqiAgACIuQD///LeAAANvZ8AAAxP5AACbNgWAAAB/XiAAHuzzQAACrXQAA==
Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:04:05 +0000
Message-ID: <A4943223-ADA7-4C3E-BF18-39756F673DB3@nominum.com>
References: <20130919215457.30925.98345.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123C933B2@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <EF97C65E-A58C-4076-B737-014126786442@nominum.com> <C5E08FE080ACFD4DAE31E4BDBF944EB123C96CF3@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <29DE3138-F0E6-4CCB-A8A0-AD5D975E0866@nominum.com> <F474FA9D-CDC4-4DB7-937E-1252E203749F@iii.ca> <F1C4B4FB-DD91-43E3-8A01-226237BA68CE@nominum.com> <140C3FBE-AADA-420D-ADFD-80C929AF8EC3@iii.ca> <96FD71CE-ED4F-4F43-A24A-BAC991455C56@nominum.com> <C57B9F23-F8A7-422F-BFC6-F2ABB899B03D@iii.ca> <96AD4029-F81B-4BC5-90EB-D232F0A95A1A@nominum.com> <F769CC42-F242-42E6-9B40-31C875EA0156@iii.ca> <44771FA3-5660-45CB-AE84-3458C7DA4D87@nominum.com> <63557975-9AE8-4C5C-A120-9E3C7E5C84A1@iii.ca>
In-Reply-To: <63557975-9AE8-4C5C-A120-9E3C7E5C84A1@iii.ca>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
x-originating-ip: [192.168.1.10]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252"
Content-ID: <9C122D80633319488AB4EEC497A016FC@nominum.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: "dhcwg@ietf.org WG" <dhcwg@ietf.org>, "ietf@ietf.org Discuss" <ietf@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 25 Oct 2013 11:04:12 -0000

On Oct 25, 2013, at 1:57 AM, Cullen Jennings <fluffy@iii.ca> wrote:
> Ted, as an IESG member, are you really sticking to a that the meaning of a BCP?

Working groups are where IETF consensus comes from.   The IETF mailing list review is there to see if the IETF disagrees with the working group consensus.   I'm trying to explain to you, the only (late) dissenter in the IETF last call, why I think the IETF should have consensus to publish the DHC working group's advice about how to implement DHCP options as a BCP.   I'm doing this because I think that it is the right thing.   If you think it's the wrong thing, at least do me the courtesy of walking me through your reasoning.

Can you make a clear argument for why some RAI working group, and not the DHC working group, should be the one to offer advice on how to do DHCP options?   Would you, for example, want sipping to be where advice on how to do new DNS RRtypes comes from?