Subject: (ngtrans) DSTM Issue: DHCPv6 mail I sent

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 10:25:35 -0400

Hi Folks,

I will point to this mail at the DSTM talk today.

regards,
/jim

------- Forwarded Message

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
To: DHCPv6 discussion list <[email-masked]>
Subject: Results in my mind of DHCPv6 Meeting
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 2000 09:42:08 -0400
Reply-To: [email-masked]
Sender: [email-masked]

Hi Folks,

Well this was an eye opening meeting.  This is my view of the key 
issues.  The authors also had another eye opening meeting with the
Chair and others after the dhc6 WG meeting.

#1 DHCPv6 is a market requirement and we need to get a WG cosensus
spec done quickly that can be implemented quickly.  At the meeting I
stated that we did not have to worry about catching the next train
to ship DHCPv6.  I WAS WRONG.  After speaking with several WG members
and listening, and connecting with several customer type IPv6 test
beds the WG needs to get this spec done A.S.A.P. and reach consensus.

#2 The WG does not have consensus that the more complicated parts
of DHCPv6 which are different than the DHCPv4 model is a good 
architecture idea.  It may be possible to reach consensus locating 
these parts (to be defined in other mail later) and take them
out of the initial draft for consensus to get an implementable spec
for the market A.S.A.P.

#3 Stream-line DHCPv6 or develop a competing proposal.  I think fine 
tuning the current spec working with members of the WG who have 
volunteered to help unofficially (to be worked and provided by
the Chair later) is the best approach to achieve dhcpv6 consensus
and get a spec all implementors will write code to is the optimal
approach to meet the IPv6 market needs.

#4 An integration of the DHCPv4 learnings within DHCPv6.  What we
have done here was not enough for some WG members and that was good
input.  Mike Carney had sent mail before the previous draft of
what we felt dhcpv4 did good and what dhcpv4 does the market would
like done better.  Then contrasted dhcpv6 with dhcpv4 and suggested
some resolution.  I think Mike should resend that mail and we can
expand or detract and use as input to the WG to begin that discussion
again.

The Chair is going to set up an interim WG meeting A.S.A.P.  My 
hope is we can address these key issues as a team and get the IPv6
market a spec we can all implement quickly and move onto standards
track and permit future extensibility we can work on together
to evolve dhcpv6.  My input to you is we need to make sure dhcpv6
can be extended from the core protocol I believe we can develop
quickly.

I will have a dhcpv6 state diagram for the WG in about 2 weeks
and will provide some IPv6 input to you all for the discussion.
THis is not now for the draft but for discussion with the WG.

regards,
/jim

------- End of Forwarded Message