Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2004 09:22:22 -0400

Hi Ralph and the DHCP WG,

Is the WG still interested in seeing the DHCPv6 SNTP option published 
as a Proposed Standard RFC?

The IESG reviewed draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-opt-sntp-00.txt in February 
2004 and there were three discusses from Thomas Narten, Alex Zinin 
and Harald Alvestrand (see below).  I believe that there is a good 
understanding of how to address all three of these discusses.  We 
even had a conference call with Harald to determine how to address 
his discuss, and we agreed to specific wording.

Although I have sent several reminders to the author, the document 
has not been updated since November 2003.  I also haven't received 
any response to at least my last two queries.  So, I don't even know 
that the author is still reachable.

I'm not sure what to do in this situation.  I don't see any sign that 
there is significant WG interest in this document (at least no one 
has asked me about it), and I don't feel comfortable with having a 
document sit in this partially IESG-approved state indefinitely, 
especially through an AD transition (such as the Security AD 
transition we expect at IETF 61).

So, unless this document is updated to address (or at least attempt 
to address) the three IESG discuss comments below by the 
Internet-Draft cut-off for IETF 61 (October 25th @ 9:00am EST), I 
will return this draft to the DHC WG (by moving it to the "AD is 
Watching" state), which will cause it to expire.  Then, if the WG 
chooses to do further work in this area, it will need to be 
re-submitted to the IESG.

Please speak up if you consider this work important and want to see 
it move forward!

Margaret

IESG Discusses and Comments

Harald Alvestrand:
Discuss:
[2004-02-05] This document should specify whether or not SNTPv4 
servers can be listed in the options list.
If they can, it should specify how they are listed.
If they cannot, it should say so; it would be beneficial to have it 
explain how a client with both IPv4 and IPv6 stacks decides which 
SNTP servers to use.

Thomas Narten:
Discuss:
[2004-01-22] >    The Simple Network Time Protocol Servers option 
provides a list of
>     one or more IPv6 addresses of SNTP [3] servers available to the
>     client for synchronization. The SNTP servers SHOULD be listed in
>     the order of preference.

For interoperability, it would be better to say that clients MUST
processes the servers as if they were in priority order. Whether the
server takes advantage of that or not is an operational issue. But if
the clients aren't guaranteed to process them in order, there is
little point in the server putting them in order.

Jon Peterson:
Comment:
[2004-01-22] The end of the sentence in Section 3 might want to 
include a direct reference to the DHCPv6 spec (presumably, [1]).

Bert Wijnen:
Comment:
[2004-01-20] From OPS DIrectorate (Pekka):

nits:
  - spell out SNTP in the Abstract
  - acknowledgement section should be split to a real acknowledgement
   section, and the regular ISOC funding acknowledgement.
  - IPR statement could be added.
  - add a dot at the end of the paragraph in section 2.

Alex Zinin:
Discuss:
[2004-01-22] Section 5 should say what the receiver should do if the 
option [number] appears in a message it is not supposed to.

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg