Subject: [Captive-portals] Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: (with DISCUSS)

From: Magnus Westerlund via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2020 06:54:52 -0700

Magnus Westerlund has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07: Discuss

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
DISCUSS:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

IANA Section:

As this document is obsoleting RFC 7710 is the document that registered the
options for DHCPv6 and RA. Why isn't this document updating the registrations
to ensure that IANA has the current document as being owner of the codepoints?

In addition when it comes to BOOTP options code 160. What you have in this
document appear to potentially lead to another future assignment end up in
trouble? Wouldn't reserved be better status for this codepoint?

---

From: Magnus Westerlund <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 09:17:36 +0000

Hi,

Looking at the new version I think there might been some errors made with the 
attempt to address my Discuss.

So in Section 4.1:
IANA Registry Reference:  RFC TBD (this document)

The registry indicated in this section was created by RFC3553, so I don't 
think the above line should have been changed.

So the new section 4.3 do address the main part of my discuss.

The updated meaning and reference for entry makes it clear the history for the 
future if anyone will consider to reuse this port.

So my discuss is resolved, but please revert the change in Section 4.1.

Cheers

Magnus

> -----Original Message-----
> From: iesg <[email-masked]> On Behalf Of Magnus Westerlund via
> Datatracker
> Sent: den 11 juni 2020 15:55
> To: The IESG <[email-masked]>
> Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]; draft-ietf-capport-
> [email-masked]; [email-masked]
> Subject: Magnus Westerlund's Discuss on draft-ietf-capport-rfc7710bis-07:
> (with DISCUSS)
>
> When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email
> addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this 
> introductory
> paragraph, however.)
>
>
> options for DHCPv6 and RA. Why isn't this document updating the
> registrations to ensure that IANA has the current document as being owner
> of the codepoints?
>

---

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2020 17:27:43 -0400

> So my discuss is resolved, but please revert the change in Section 4.1.

Whoops, you are right / I misunderstood the registry. Fixed, and new
version (-09) uploaded.

W

> email
> > Please refer to
> https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad idea in
the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair of
pants.
   ---maf