Subject: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-packetcable-05.txt ... section 12.

From: Paul Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 08 Jan 2003 17:33:04 -0500

Thomas/Ralph/all,

Assuming the following:

1. Cablelabs and the DHC WG/IETF will collaborate to complete simple CCC 
sub-option extension drafts in 30 - 60 days.
2. The Cablelabs requirement to maintain project ranges within the 
sub-option number space can be dropped.

Please review the following text change...

--------------------------

Old text:

12.  Procedure for Adding Additional Sub-options

IANA is requested to maintain a new number space of "CableLabs  Client 
Configuration Sub-options", located in the BOOTP-DHCP Parameters 
Registry.  The initial sub-option codes are described in sections of this 
document.

IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client 
Configuration Sub-options with an "Expert Review" approval policy as 
described in RFC 2434 [2]. Future proposed sub-options will be assigned a 
numeric code chosen by CableLabs, which will be documented in the Internet 
Drafts that describe the sub-options. The code assignment will be reviewed 
by a designated expert from the IETF prior to publication in an RFC.

New Text:

12.  Procedure for Adding Additional Sub-options

IANA is requested to maintain a new number space of "CableLabs Client 
Configuration Sub-options", located in the BOOTP-DHCP Parameters 
Registry.  The initial sub-option codes are described in sections of this 
document.

IANA is requested to register codes for future CableLabs Client 
Configuration Sub-options via an "IETF Consensus" approval policy as 
described in RFC 2434 [2].

----------------------------

Is this change satisfactory?

Cheers,

--

Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]

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

---

From: Thomas Narten <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 13:38:59 -0500

Hi Paul.

> sub-option extension drafts in 30 - 60 days.

I think this is a fine goal, but we need to be clear that there are no
guarantees. I'm saying that because different folk may disagree about
what a "simple" extension is, for example. And my expectation is that
this sort of short time fuse will be for emergencies, not the general
way things are done.  But we won't be able to resolve this without
looking at the specific proposals.

I'm saying this mostly because 30 days is really really short between
a 00 version of an ID appears and the IESG approves (almost impossible
for standards track, more like doable for info document). And if this
happens during an IETF meeting, things get difficult.

But in principle I think this is doable.

I'd also like to get Ralph's take on this, since the DHC WG also has
to deliver on this.

> sub-option number space can be dropped.

OK.

> Registry.  The initial sub-option codes are described in sections of this 

It would be good to actually list the sub-codes here (e.g., in a
table) or mention the specific sections. This is to make IANA's job
easier (you don't want them to have to search too hard to figure out
what you need).

> Is this change satisfactory?

Works for me.

Thomas

---

From: Paul Duffy <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 14:28:17 -0500

Great.  I'll submit the new draft today.  Looks like we're done!

Cheers,

--

Paul Duffy
Cisco Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 15:47:44 -0500

Paul,

Regarding "30-60 days" - 30 days is pretty optimistic, but 30-60 days seems 
feasible.  Of course, anything CableLabs can do to get the WG involved as 
early as possible will help.  For example, if Cablelabs could publish a 
preliminary descriptions of a new suboption as an Internet-Draft (I-Ds are 
cheap) as soon as development begins on that new suboption, the WG will 
have a chance to address DHCP-compatibility issues early on in the 
process.  Then, we could do a WG last call as soon as the final CableLabs 
spec and Internet-Draft are published.

The other proposed changes look fine to me...

- Ralph