Subject: [Dhcpv6bis] Proposed agenda for Feb. 4th meeting

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 13:48:48 +0100

Here's the proposed agenda. Feel free to add other topics if you feel
it's useful to discuss it.

0. Agenda bashing

1. Work conducted since previous meeting.

2. 3315bis adoption
We previous agreed to that adoption 2-3 weeks before IETF would be the
way to go. The submission deadline is 2015-03-09. We should complete the
2 weeks adoption call a couple days before that. This indicates that we
should start the call around Feb. 18?

One unresolved question is whether we want to keep the bis mailing list
active or move everything to the dhc list. In my opinion, it is obvious
that we'll keep the bis tracker active, it's just a matter of possibly
reconfiguring it to send to a different list. Maybe this could be a
second question during the adoption call?

3. Editors work
Sections 18, 19, 20 reorganization. See the recent discussion starting
here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcpv6bis/current/msg00418.html

4. Stateful issues update
-10 was published that hopefully addresses the comments received during
WGLC. Bernie or Marcin will give us an update. Let's discuss whether the
stateful-issues tickets (#59 - 66) are unblocked or not.

5. Review of new tickets, if any

6. Any other business

Tomek

---

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 19:31:12 +0100

Attendees:
- Andrew
- Bernie
- Marcin
- Sheng
- Tomek

1. Work conducted since previous meeting.
We did close 5 tickets. One notable is #14. That was a huge ticket that
came from Fred Templin's review and consisted of 28 items. Sheng managed
to address them all and close it. Great work!

2. 3315bis adoption
We had a discussion about the adoption. The submission deadline before
Dallas is 2015-03-09. To have it adopted by then, we'll have to start
adoption call around Feb. 19. Tomek checked that recent XML does not
have any obvious issues. We decided to publish whatever we have by Feb.
19 in github, then start adoption call on it.

We did discuss what to do with issue tracker. Obviously, it will stay
there (no point in moving tickets around). The question is whether we
want tracker notifications to go to dhcpv6bis or dhc mailing list. The
consensus was that the bis team prefer for it to go to dhcpv6bis list.
We will include that proposal in the adoption call, asking whether
people have any objections.

3. Editors work
Marcin has a couple comments, and we discussed them in detail:
http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/dhcpv6bis/current/msg00418.html

The first was about unification for address and prefix processing. Right
now we have in sections 18, 19 and 20 the sections from 3315 and
sections copied over from 3633. We considered whether it would be useful
to merge them and the decision was to do it. This is complex process, so
we decided to split it into phases:

1. apply stateful-issues changes
2. write proposed merged text, but keep the separate text around. Once
we have both, we then could review it and decide which is more readable.
3. We could discuss it in Dallas if we get the unified text by March 22nd.

Marcin volunteered to do some work in this area, but not in the next 2
weeks due to other work obligations.

The second topic was about the best term to describe addresses and
prefixes. Previously we agreed to use "allocatable resource" (short
form: resource). There was a recent proposal to use "allocated state",
but that proposal was rejected, based on 2 reasons. First, allocated is
a definite. What we're looking for should also be usable before anything
is allocated (e.g. what the client puts in Solicit) or when it is no
longer allocated (e.g. what the server puts in Reply to Decline or
Release). Second concern was the clients get addresses or prefixes, and
the fact that there's a state that need to be tracked is really an
implementation detail.

Bernie proposed to use "lease" instead. We checked that "lease" is not
used in 3315 and there are only 2 occurrences in 3315bis (which are
technically mistakes, because the term was never defined). The term is
nice, because it is short and intuitively understandable, but has
similar issues (must be usable in text that describes pre-Solict or
post-Release scenarios). We think this is something that could be
addressed with a proper definition in terminology section. As before, we
plan to come to agreement on this one in the bis team and present our
decision in Dallas, asking for any comments or objections.

The third question was how to refer to NoAddrsAvail and NoPrefixAvail in
an uniform way. Marcin proposed to use "no resources available status
code". That would be fine if we decide to stick with allocatable
resource terminology. If we move to "lease", no resource avaible would
need to be updated as well.

4. Stateful-issues
We had a successful WGLC. -10 was published and we're awaiting whether
original commenters are ok with the changes. Unless something major
comes up, we plan to request publication early next week (Feb. 9).
Bernis said that he'd like to hold on with applying the changes in
3315bis until we have some sort of positive indication from IESG that
the stateful-issues draft is acceptable (a positive review from Ted
would probably do the trick). We decided to move stateful-issues tickets
to separate milestone in the issue tracker.

Bernie, Marcin and Tomek will be busy with work related
responsibilities, so they will likely not do much IETF related in the
next couple weeks.

Tomek

---

From: Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 04 Feb 2015 20:20:55 -0500

What about the question about adoption of the draft?

--
Michael Richardson <[email-masked]>, Sandelman Software Works
 -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-