Subject: [dhcwg] Process: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc and draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 May 2009 11:15:51 -0700

John and I were just talking about how to get a good discussion going  
on the working group mailing list on these two items, which came up at  
the IETF74 meeting.   I think in order to do that we need to divide  
the discussion up into three parts:

1. Is this something that should happen?
2. Who should do it?
3. What should the documents say?

Once we divide it up this way, it becomes obvious to me that the first  
part of the discussion simply isn't within the charter of the DHC  
working group.   There are certainly participants in the DHC working  
group who have an interest in this discussion, and ultimately if the  
IETF were to proceed in defining these DHCPv6 options, it would be  
something that would require the involvement of the DHC working group,  
so it seems natural to bring it up in the DHC working group, but  
actually it's futile to do so - it's just a waste of everybody's time.

As for the second discussion, I don't get the sense that there is  
consensus among participants in the DHC working group that we should  
be doing this work. I don't get the sense that there is consensus that  
we should not, either.   The point is that the interested parties in  
the DHC working group should be having this discussion somewhere else  
- perhaps int area, perhaps routing area, perhaps some other working  
group.   And then once a conclusion has been reached, I think it would  
be fine to come back to the DHC working group and say "will you now do  
this?"   But I don't think that conclusion has been reached yet.

As for the third discussion, there are aspects of that discussion that  
make sense to have in the DHC working group, but there are other  
aspects that clearly aren't within our area of expertise.   What the  
options should look like is probably our issue, although others may  
have opinions about that.   How to resolve inconsistencies between  
what might be received in an RA, and what might be received in a DHCP  
message, really isn't our area of expertise.

The reason I am writing this up now is to ask the participants in the  
working group to comment on this.   Would anybody disagree with this  
division of the discussion?   Would anybody disagree with what I've  
said about where each part of this discussion ought to occur?   If so,  
please explain.   If not, I'd like to encourage the interested parties  
not to get discouraged about this, but rather to take up the work of  
finding a home for these discussions, to have the discussions, see  
what consensus arises, and bring that back to us.

If the consensus of the working group is that we *ought* to be  
responsible for these discussions, then we should start talking about  
rechartering to include this work in our charter.   If nothing else, I  
suspect that will trigger some fruitful discussion with interested  
parties who are not regular participants in the DHC working group.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 May 2009 17:39:13 -0700

I'm assuming from the complete lack of response to my earlier message  
about these two drafts that everybody agrees that these drafts needn't  
be discussed any further by the DHC working group until some routing  
area or ipv6 maintenance area working group comes to us and asks us to  
consider them again, and that those who are interested in such  
consideration are pursuing matters in such working groups.

---

From: "Alper Yegin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 11:35:40 +0300

Hi Ted,

mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc is already in RFC editor's queue.

https://datatracker.ietf.org/idtracker/draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integra
ted-dhc/

Maybe there was a misunderstanding and people thought this was a new
proposal yet to be discussed in the DHC WG?

Alper

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Tuesday, May 19, 2009 3:39 AM
> To: dhc WG
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Process: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-
> dhc and draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router
> 
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 09:34:17 -0400

I'll ignore the issue(s) with regards to
draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc because of its current
status (as pointed out by Alper Yegin).

Regarding draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router, while I support this
work, I do believe that it has very significant impacts to IPv6 and
therefore should be discussed elsewhere (most likely 6man) and with the
ADs to determine where the work is best debated and advanced.

And, if it is not a DHC WG work product, we should have the
responsibility to review the work for DHCPv6 protocol related issues. It
may be that it ends up in the DHC WG because there is no other 'better'
place, but I fear that this would be a mistake as it has very broad
implications and should get much more thorough discussion and review
from the IPv6 community. (I believe I am in full agreement with your
comments below on the 3rd discussion issue.)

If no appropriate home for it can be found, perhaps a BOF / new WG to
address this issue needs to be considered. But, I hope that is not
necessary. Though what concerns me is the 6man charter text of:

  It is not chartered to develop major changes or additions to
  the IPv6 specifications. The working group will address
  protocol limitations/issues discovered during deployment and
  operation. It will also serve as a venue for discussing the
  proper location for working on IPv6-related issues within
  the IETF.

That last sentence should be why this at least should start with them.

We should also ask what was the history for this work and did the 6man
WG send it on to the DHC WG? (If so, we'd be going around in circles
sending it back to them.)

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Friday, May 08, 2009 2:16 PM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] Process: draft-ietf-mip6-bootstrapping-integrated-dhc
anddraft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:19:13 -0700

Sigh.   As several people have noticed, I cut-and-pasted the wrong  
draft name in my previous message.   The correct draft is this one:  
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option, not this one: draft-ietf-mip6- 
bootstrapping-integrated-dhc.   The reason I mention both drafts  
together is that they are both about configuring routing via DHCPv6.

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 12:43:04 -0700

> sending it back to them.)

You make many excellent points, with which I entirely agree, so I  
won't comment on them, but just a reality check here - even if we are  
in a loop with 6man (and I have to admit I don't know if we are), I  
would *still* argue that the dhc working group is the wrong place to  
originate this document.   If there is no working group that's  
chartered for this document, it should just be an internet area or  
routing area document or, as you say, a new working group should be  
chartered to shepherd it.   The reason I say this is, first, that the  
dhc working group would have to recharter to take on this work, and  
therefore it doesn't save time for dhc to do it, and second, that this  
particular topic isn't even really related to the dhc working group  
charter, so it's a weird stretch for us to be considering it.

But that's the point of having this discussion.   If in fact the wg in  
general wants to take on this work, perhaps we should.   Historically  
the wg has done work like this in the past - e.g., the classless  
static routes option and the original static routes option and default  
routers option in dhcpv4.   But the topic was much less contentious  
there.   So I'm asking the question in order to find out what people  
think - should we try to do this work, or not?

---

From: "MILES DAVID" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Jun 2009 11:48:00 +0800

Ted and Bernie,

It's fair to say there is a deal of contention around DHCPv6 being used
as an alternative to RA (draft-droms-dhc-dhcpv6-default-router) for
default router selection however I'm not sure I would put
draft-dec-dhcpv6-route-option in the same boat (though I can see how one
could use it for such).

Per Ted's email, DHC WG already defined static route options for DHCPv4
and there is no equivalent mechanism in RA being discussed to my
knowledge. 
In the same way that the WG is considering DHCPv6 for policy table
control I see draft-dec proposing route-table control. There is a real
need to support this in broadband models (like TR-144 adapted to IPv6)
and while an alternative is to use VSO, I for one would like to see the
WG look at static route options for DHCPv6. 

-d