RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails)

Pekka,

Have you read both specs?  Both Ralph and I have told you it's a total
proper subset.  We are the TECHNICAL experts and both are working
implementations hands on of both specs, the AD has stated a good opinion
too.  You now are using up our time with your opinion and have been told
by many now its not a problem.  Your using up precious mail time here on
this list and would you now please clarify when your speaking as Chair
and when as "individual" so we can get an idea what portion of your mail
is breaking the defacto rule of 15 mail messages a week.  You have lost
this debate please accept it and move on I am sure John can get text
from all said can we please move on to next topic.

Thanks
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ipv6-admin@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-admin@ietf.org] On 
> Behalf Of Pekka Savola
> Sent: Thursday, December 04, 2003 1:32 PM
> To: Ralph Droms
> Cc: john.loughney@nokia.com; narten@us.ibm.com; 
> Bob.Hinden@nokia.com; ipv6@ietf.org
> Subject: RE: Node Req: Issue31: DHCPv6 text (ignore previous mails) 
> 
> 
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2003, Ralph Droms wrote:
> > No, there are not really two versions of DHCPv6 - all of 
> the various message
> > exchanges and modes of operation are defined in RFC 3315.
> > draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-02.txt is an aid to the 
> implementation of
> > DHCP that provides other configuration information but not 
> address assignment.
> 
> Sure, but then a sentence like "if DHCP is implemented" makes a bit 
> sense as some may implement the critical part and some not.  It's not 
> a binary yes/no decision.
> 
> > It might clarify the text a little to refer to "a node that 
> uses DHCP for
> > address assignment" and "a node that uses DHCP to obtain 
> other configuration
> > information"; 
> 
> Based on the wording, that might be fine.
> 
> > I think references to "stateless DHCPv6" are confusing.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not.  A brief reference could maybe be added 
> just to make 
> the folks realize that there is a implementable and "blessed" subset 
> of DHCP.. but the main point is clarity in the body of the 
> description.
> 
> 
> > At 01:25 PM 12/4/2003 +0200, Pekka Savola wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >Also, there are basically two versions of "DHCP": the one 
> specified in
> > >RFC3315, and the "stateless DHCP", in IESG review at the 
> moment.  It
> > >is not clear to which you're referring to here.
> > >
> > >--
> > >Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves 
> king, yet the
> > >Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> > >Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A 
> Clash of Kings
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > >IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > >ipv6@ietf.org
> > >Administrative Requests: 
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > 
> >--------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > 
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> > ipv6@ietf.org
> > Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> 

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------