OK, now I have to step in with a response and to correct a couple of
misconceptions.
On 9/28/06 12:27 PM, "John C Klensin" <john-ietf(_at_)jck(_dot_)com> wrote:
Issue 1: Even if the option is desirable and the motivation for
it is clear, the specification is inadequate in definitions and
specificity in this particular document. I believe that there
is no longer any real controversy on that matter and that the
issue suggests, and perhaps requires, ending the Last Call and
returning the document to the authors. Further kicking of that
dead horse on this list is unlikely to accomplish much of
anything, IMO.
Based on feedback received during the IETF last call, the authors and the
dhc WG, in collaboration with the dnsop WG, will revise the spec to address
the following issues:
1. clarify the use case motivating this option
2. clarify/reword the phrase "domain suffix"
3. simplify the reference to RFC 1035 encoding
Issue 2: [...]
Certainly the charter of the DHC WG doesn't contain "mindlessly
move options from v4 to v6".
And the dhc WG has explicitly not "mindlessly moved options from v4 to v6".
Had you checked the history of DHCPv6, you would have found that the dhc WG
considered several mechanisms for carrying DHCPv4 options over to DHCPv6.
The WG rejected those mechanisms and made an explicit decision to only
redefine DHCPv4 options for DHCPv6 on demand, as required by specific use
cases.
In retrospect, we should have collaborated with the dnsop WG on this option
and we'll do so now.
However, to correct another misconception, the dhc WG does, in fact,
collaborate with customer WGs on new DHCPv[46] options. In fact, the WG, in
consultation with the Internet ADs, makes every effort to have the customer
WG do the bulk of the option development, with input from the dhc WG on
compatibility with DHCP operation, syntax, etc.
[...]
john
So, you've all had an opportunity to make your points, more or less
accurately and constructively, and the dhc WG will, as I said, work with the
authors and the dnsop WG to review, reconsider and clarify the document. We
will be sure to better document the motivation and use cases for this option
in a revised document.
I think we've spent way more energy in dead horse kicking than we needed to
on a fairly insignificant DHCPv6 option at this point.
- Ralph
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf