Subject: [dhcwg] Not adopting new drafts without coordinating with related WG

From: Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:14:46 +0000 (GMT)

In Source Address Selection presentation case, the DHC working group 
is not able to take this draft without first coordinating with other
related working groups. That's my understanding. 

If yes, I'd raise a question of which level does this working group
require from other related working group. 
Confirmation or request from the chairs of other WG ? or just 
technical reviewing ? or anything else ?

In IPv6-over-IPv4 tunnel draft case, I am also suffering from the 
same trouble in this room even if many guys agree that this draft 
is useful...

I think we need a reasonable criteria...

Regards   
 
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory. SAMSUNG Electronics

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

---

From: Tim Chown <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2005 16:32:57 +0000

> technical reviewing ? or anything else ?

This seesm reasonable to me; there should be a scenario/need for the
proposed bit of DHCP protocol that's being added.  To me that means the
draft would be adopted/adoptable by the WG in question.   For source
address selection v6ops seems appropriate (even if protocol work is
then done in ipv6 WG).

> same trouble in this room even if many guys agree that this draft 

This should be run by/through v6tc? (though I don't think v6tc is formally
a WG yet, a decision needs to be made after this week's BoF, and indeed
whether TEP discovery is in scope for v6tc).

Tim