Subject: [Ietf-krb-wg] kdc-options

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 12:42:18 +0100

Folks,

This has been in the revised I-D needed state
for 65 days now. [1]

Can we move it along or kill it or something
please?

Thanks,
Stephen.

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-sakane-dhc-dhcpv6-kdc-option/
_______________________________________________
ietf-krb-wg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://lists.anl.gov/mailman/listinfo/ietf-krb-wg

---

From: Jeffrey Hutzelman <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 13:44:13 -0400

> Can we move it along or kill it or something

I assume you mean the DHCPv6 option draft.

It's _been_ moving along.
It's had a number of reviews, a recent set of revisions by the author to
address review comments, and Tom Petch did some copy editing, which he
completed about a week ago.  However, the author has said that he's
swamped preparing for a show of some sort and won't be able to get back
to this until the end of June.

So for the moment, I'm happy with the state of this one.

---

From: Stephen Farrell <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 13 Jun 2012 23:09:01 +0100

Hi Jeff,

> I assume you mean the DHCPv6 option draft.

Right, sorry.

> completed about a week ago.  

Ah, I didn't know Tom was helping out, I thought his mails
were additional comments that hadn't got a response.

> However, the author has said that he's

Ok for the moment so.

Cheers,
S.

---

From: t.p. <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 09:24:29 +0100

----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Farrell" <[email-masked]>
To: "Jeffrey Hutzelman" <[email-masked]>
Cc: <[email-masked]>
Sent: Wednesday, June 13, 2012 11:09 PM
> were additional comments that hadn't got a response.

Stephen

My copy-editing was off-list and the resultant text has gone back to
Shoichi.  I found that I had made a lot of textual changes but, I hope,
no semantic ones.  I proposed that Shoichi check that I had not changed
anything inadvertently before taking it back to the list.

Separate from that, I found two areas in the text that I would have
changed had I licence to do so, and section 4.1 on the procedure to
follow when either DNS or DHCPv6 could provide an answer is one of them.
I decided to raise that on the list for the record so, so far, that is
the only part that is publicly visible.

As Jeff says, we now await Shoichi's review of my text.

Tom Petch