Subject: Re: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 and DHCPv4 Vendor Message Drafts (Individual Submissions) / Agenda Time Request

From: Richard Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2008 15:04:58 -0700

I would like to speak up in support of both of these drafts and would  
like to ask where they currently stand.  They're both so straight- 
forward, I'm wondering if we can move them to WG Last Call soon, if  
they're not there already.

/raj

On Jul 16, 2008, at 3:25 PM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:

> Folks:
>
> I recently submitted an updated
> draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv6-vendor-message-01.txt and also a new
> draft-volz-dhc-dhcpv4-vendor-message-00.txt.
>
> The DHCPv6 draft was originally presented at the Prague IETF (IETF-68)
> and wasn't warmly received. One of the issues was the reserved option
> space, which has been removed. The more significant concern, if I  
> recall
> correctly, was that vendors would use these messages in place of going
> the standards route, and while I can't say that isn't a valid  
> concern, I
> suspect that in most cases that won't be an issue. My purpose for this
> message is to allow communication between DHCP entities for data that
> would not normally be standardized or there is little interest for.  
> For
> example, it could be used by DHCP servers to exchange configuration  
> data
> or implement failover (we know the long and tortured road that DHCPv4
> failover has followed and while there was a LOT of value to that work,
> we still don't have a standards track document and there's little
> interest to doing the work necessary to get it done).
>
> The DHCPv4 draft is new and was a natural extension. Of course, DHCPv4
> is a bit different from DHCPv6, so there are some differences (a new
> option is needed to convey the enterprise-id number).
>
> I will not be at the Dublin IETF and may try to participate virtually
> (it will be 4AM for me, but I likely shouldn't complain as most will
> still be jet lagged).
>
> I've asked Ralph (with his working co-chair hat off) to present
> something briefly. Hopefully he and John can work it into the schedule
> if time permits (it is a very late agenda addition).
>
> If anyone on the list supports the concept (as several folks did
> privately communicate interest to me), please speak up - either at the
> meeting or on the list.
>
> - Bernie
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

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

---

From: Richard Johnson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2008 15:26:22 -0700

So, I'm not hearing any statements against these drafts.  I'd like to  
see these drafts moved to WGLC ASAP.  My understanding is that final  
decisions are made on this mailing list.  That being the case, can we  
get these moved to WGLC without having to wait for Minneapolis?  It  
sure would be nice.

/raj