Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 14:18:26 -0500

I have submitted a new version of the VPN option draft today:

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt

The changes were:

  1.  Clarified the response of a DHCPv6 server to the appearance
  of the DHCPv6 VSS option in the ORO or ERO options.
  Specifically, the draft says that for the VSS option the
  processing specified in the draft concerning the DHCPv6 VSS
  option takes precedence over any activity implied by the
  appearance of the DHCPV6 VSS option in the ERO or ORO options.
  This was based on a discussion largely between Bernie Volz and
  David Hankins (though others contributed) concerning this
  issue.

  2.  Added more words to make it clear that if you use a
  DHCPv4 relay agent that supports the VSS sub-option and you
  configure it to send that sub-option to a DHCPv4 server, then
  you MUST also use a DHCPv4 server that supports the VSS
  sub-option.  This was based on a discussion with Alfred Hoenes.

  3.  A variety of editorial corrections were made, based on
  several respondents, though largely based on reviews by Alfred
  Hoenes and Josh Littlefield.

  4. Updated to new boilerplate.  I didn't include the text
  suggested by idnits concerning the inclusion of old text
  or information as all there is nothing in this draft that
  is an issue and the authors are all still available.  I
  *think* I got that right, but you never know.

In all cases above, I believe these changes clarified the
original intent of the draft and did not change the behavior that
had already passed the DHC WG last call.  As such (and for a
change), I don't think this draft needs to go through a DHC WG
last call again.

I believe that this draft is ready to progress to the next step
after last call.

Regards -- Kim

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 12:57:15 -0800

> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt

Section 4, the new paragraph, s/client's/clients/, cosmetic.

I think these changes are in line with what we discussed (I see
the issue of ORO/ERO is clarified, designating this as a "protocol
option", outside of ORO/ERO processing).

> I believe that this draft is ready to progress to the next step

Me too.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		     you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.		-- Jack T. Hankins

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 16:01:52 -0500

Agree with David and Kim ... These changes are good and inline with what
was discussed on the list.

Please progress to the next step after WG last call.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of David W. Hankins
Sent: Tuesday, March 03, 2009 3:57 PM
To: DHC WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt

Me too.

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Mar 2009 16:07:28 -0500

Prior to this update, I performed an exhausting, excuse me,
exhaustive search of my email archives for any comments
concerning this draft.  I included everything I found, but I
managed to completely miss the "tickets" for this draft.

I will re-issue soon yet another version of the draft with the
changes (all relatively minor) that will clear the tickets
currently outstanding and increase the clarity of the draft.

One of the tickets concerns #2, below, which I already handled.

Regards,

Kim