IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD

Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net> Fri, 13 May 2011 23:32 UTC

Return-Path: <brian@innovationslab.net>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0A71DE07B6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:32:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -102.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-102.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, USER_IN_WHITELIST=-100]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id XzhLy1nFKi79 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uillean.fuaim.com (uillean.fuaim.com [206.197.161.140]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 22F96E0749 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:32:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clairseach.fuaim.com (clairseach.fuaim.com [206.197.161.141]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by uillean.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B3C9E8815E for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:25:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from clemson.local (c-76-100-105-215.hsd1.md.comcast.net [76.100.105.215]) (using TLSv1 with cipher AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by clairseach.fuaim.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2193B130002 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Fri, 13 May 2011 16:32:11 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4DCDBF77.90604@innovationslab.net>
Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 19:32:07 -0400
From: Brian Haberman <brian@innovationslab.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.5; en-US; rv:1.9.2.17) Gecko/20110414 Thunderbird/3.1.10
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: ipv6@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Node Requirements: Elevating DHCPv6 from MAY to SHOULD
References: <201105131337.p4DDbdao009901@cichlid.raleigh.ibm.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1105131848110.20305@uplift.swm.pp.se> <20110514.012152.41686540.sthaug@nethelp.no>
In-Reply-To: <20110514.012152.41686540.sthaug@nethelp.no>
X-Enigmail-Version: 1.1.1
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 13 May 2011 23:32:14 -0000

All,
     The chairs have determined that there is a strong consensus to
elevate DHCPv6 to SHOULD support in the node requirements document.
Since this is the last open issue with this document, the chairs will
begin the advancement process when a new version is published.

Regards,
Brian & Bob

On 5/13/11 7:21 PM, sthaug@nethelp.no wrote:
>>> Per a previous thread, there are indications that the WG may now be 
>>> willing to recommend that DHCPv6 be a SHOULD for all hosts. This is 
>>> based on the following rationale:
>>
>> I support moving it to SHOULD.
> 
> Agreed.
> 
> Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, sthaug@nethelp.no
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email