Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] 2015-01-07 DHCPv6bis team meeting minutes

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2015 15:54:55 +0100

Apologies if anyone else was taking minutes. I was couple minutes late,
so maybe I missed if someone else took the notes as well.

Attendees:
Andrew
Bernie
Marcin
Michael
Sheng
Tim
Tomek

0. Jitsi vs webex
Marcin asked why are we not trying to use Jitsi. It was too late for
experiments on this meeting, but we can try it for the next one.

1. Work conducted since previous meetings
As expected, end of the year was a slow time, so not much progress was
done. We closed a handful of tickets. Everyone made an honest promise to
spend a bit more time next month ;)

2. 3315bis adoption
We had an interesting discussion about the adoption. Majority of
attendees favor adoption, but there were quite a few issues raised.
Bernie said that adoption would make our progress even slower as it will
be more difficult to reach consensus among unspecified number of people
vs. just 6 or 7 right now. Another issue raised was whether we want to
keep separate bis mailing list after the adoption or not. bis list
occasionally has bigger traffic than dhc, so it may scare some people
off from dhc if they feel overloaded with the joint traffic. On the
other hand, having a single list would be helpful as a single point of
reference. The intention is more or less to keep the monthly meetings as
they help move the work forward. Possibly we'll allow other WG members
to participate.

Sheng suggested that the argument of waiting with adoption till it is
complete could be repeated ad inifitum as there always be something to
change, so perhaps it would be good to specify a somewhat arbitrary
deadline at which we will ask for adoption and the next IETF meeting was
suggested. Sheng also mentioned a related issue Ted mentioned that when
both chairs are co-authors, it is difficult to manage the calls. It's
even more complicated, as Sheng, DHC secretary, is also a co-author. Ted
suggested that maybe we could invite a temporary co-chair for that purpose.

In any case, it seems that the way forward will be to ask for adoption 2
or 3 weeks before the next IETF. By early March we will upload whatever
we have and will start adoption call. The details are TBD, but it seems
useful to also ask whether WG members want to keep bis traffic on a
separate list or on dhc list.

3. Editors work
Bernie and Tomek had a meeting and discussed several topics. We created
a bunch of new tickets and decided to bring up two to the team:

3.1 DHCP or DHCPv6?
Ticket #132. The question was whether to use DHCP or DHCPv6 throughout
the text to refer to the protocol. Bernie and Marcin prefer DHCP, while
Sheng, Michael, Andrew and Tomek prefer DHCPv6. There was a surprisingly
long discussion on whether we should define a guideline for new text
being introduced, how references are made and whether people read
terminology sections when they follow references. No specific decision
was made, so we decided to keep this ticket open. We will get back to
it, when the document is a WG item. Tomek will move this ticket to C
(awaiting consnsus) category.

3.1 Restructure client/server behavior sections?
Ticket #142. Current text is focused on specific mechanisms (server
solicitation, client initiated exchange, server initiated exchange),
with each section having its own client behavior and server behavior
sections. The suggestion here was to follow RFC7227 advice and have one
client behavior section with multiple subsections and a similar one for
the server. There was unanimous support for this, so Tomek will move
this ticket to the appropriate category.

4. Stateful issues update
Bernie gave us the latest update. Even though the WGLC has passed,
there's 60+ items to be addressed. It will still have to be confirmed
with the original commenters whether the text addresses their issues.
Even after that is done, Bernie would like to hold off until Ted posts
his comments and the draft reaches IESG. Unfortunately, Tomek's
assumption that the stateful tickets are unstuck is premature.

5. Ticket review, plans for the next month
Everyone, except Andrew, has a ticket to work on. Andrew said he'll pick
something up, but due to work obligations, his dedication this month
will be rather small.

We talked very briefly about #139 ticket (would a list of mandatory
options for stateful be useful?), but Bernie said that this ticket
should be more thoroughly discussed, so we kept it for the next meeting.

Marcin said that he's waiting for the editors (Bernie and Tomek) to make
decision regarding the merge strategy. Bernie said that specific
questions would be helpful. Marcin will send questions to the editors
regarding open issues.

Tomek

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2015 10:06:01 -0500

Sorry I didn't make the call this morning--it's been a challenging week.  :}

On the topic of adoption, it's worth noting that while it's good to try to get the document into a state where you think all the fusspot issues have been resolved before adopting, every issue that's in the tracker can in principle be reopened by the working group when it becomes a working group document.   So sure, it's worth getting the trivial stuff out of the way before adopting, but anything that's nontrivial might get opened up anyway, and you can't say "we already decided on that in the design team," because the design team is not a consensus process.

On that note, continuing to discuss the document on the design team mailing list once it's been adopted is also outside of the consensus process, and probably not a good idea.   So I would advise you to shut down the mailing list at that point.

I think the risk of alienating DHCwg participants by discussing on this list is nonexistent.   It's more likely to add energy to the list than drive anybody away who would have contributed.   If somebody considers the traffic bothersome, it's likely because they aren't really all that interested in DHCP anyway.   The DHC mailing list is very quiet compared to a lot of working group mailing lists for working groups that I would describe as quite successful.

And I think Sheng is right that delaying is of little value.