Subject: Clarification

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 1 Dec 1999 13:25:04 -0500 (EST)

WG Members,

Need to provide some clarification and whats happening here.

> 
> Charlie,
> 
> I don't agree with 90% of what you object to.  But for now I am just
> going to listen to where the working group goes with this discussion.
> especially the implementors.  Then you, Mike, and I can look at it and
> state what we think we heard everyone say and present the issues.
> So I am not going to defend my statements you don't agree with at this
> point I would rather see the wg respond.
> 
> thanks
> /jim

Please don't take this that Charlie, Mike, and I are not working
together.  What has happened is we are getting really great input and
addressing (no pun intended) the issues Mike so clearly artitulated that
we must resolve to get DHCPv6 to PS.  In some cases its happening
realtime and the intial discussion is taking place on the list. My
disagreement with Charlie are fine in this space and we always converge
and we usually do this offline but we don't want to stop the momentum
eitiher.  I proposed an addressing model for clients to get addresses to
resolve the issues from Mikes summary and that we have changed the
dhcpv4 and addrconf model.  I propose a compromise and also that we do
get into very detailed description of what happens for each case in this
part of the spec.  In our zest to work on this we did not have time to
talk offline.  We are discussing this and other ideas now as authors and
will converge but please keep this part alive it is the most important
part of the change to dhcpv6 IMO that we get right and consensus on for
initial success to submit as PS.

Also if you have sent us offline input on the addressing discussion
please send it to the DHCPv6 list so all see it.

The authors are in synch and hard at work in addition to the great set
of mail exchange on all the topics.  Its like having two jobs here.

I am dropping balls at my day job and very attentive to this process
there is nothing more important going on for me than DHCPv6 for a little
while anyway.

thanks so much,
/jim