Subject: [dhcwg] draft-raghuvanshi-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00 adoption call successful

From: Tomek Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 19:34:53 +0100

On 11.11.2013 17:03, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
> This call is being initiated to confirm whether there is indeed WG
> consensus to adopt this work as DHC WG item. Please state whether or not
> you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not
> in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This
> adoption call will complete on November 25, 2013.
Sorry for a slight delay regarding this summary. I was on vacation last
week. Since Bernie and authors of that drafts work for the same company,
it is better for me to gauge the consensus.

Luckily, that was a very easy thing to do. There's very clear support
for adopting this work without any objections raised, so the adoption
call is successful. Authors, please upload your draft as WG
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-active-leasequery-00.

There were several voices raised regarding v4 active leasequery.
Together with Bernie we decided that if authors want to pursue v4 active
leasequery, they can do so using separate draft. Although DHCPv4 work is
technically outside of our charter, we asked for permission our
responsible AD if it would be ok to adopt it and got Ted's permission.
IIRC there was v4 active leasequery draft, but it expired. I think
reviving it and then doing adoption call would be the easiest way to
move forward.

On a practical note, having 2 drafts is easier to handle than one, for
multiple reasons. First, the text would be unnecessarily bloated ("in v4
use this, in v6 use that" in many places). Second, v4 has much less
enthusiastic support in the WG, so it is less likely that it will
conclude the standardization path. Third, having 2 drafts is much easier
to gauge consensus on separate drafts. Finally, some implementors are
interested in v6 only, so forcing them the deal with the v4 text is
unnecessary.

Tomek