Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 10:58:04 -0500

The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service".  There is a request to change the
title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.

I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
protocol.  If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the potential
for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"

- Ralph

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 10:26:42 -0600

I think it's fine to change the name.   The fact that it's referencing 
DHCPv6 in the title seems sufficient to eliminate confusion, and if 
anyone remains confused, they will realize they need RFC3315 when they 
read the document.

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 11:49:59 -0500

Ralph:

I don't have any objection to changing the document name to "Stateless
DHCPv6 Server". 

I would suggest that perhaps section 4 have an explicit reference to RFC
3315 and DHCPv6:

4. Basic Requirements for Implementation of DHCP

      Several sections of the DHCPv6 specification [1] provide background
                                  ^^               ^^^
      information or define parts of the specification that are common
      to all implementations:

Note that in most places you refer to RFC 3315 as "DHCPv6 specification" and
not DHCP specification.

Also, you should review your use of DHCP vs. DHCPv6 throughout. In section
2, you state "Throughout this document, "DHCP" refers to DHCP for IPv6." But
DHCPv6 is used fairly frequently. Personally, I'd prefer that "DHCPv6" be
used instead of just "DHCP". But, whichever you decide, I think it important
that the usage is consistent.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Ralph
Droms
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

- Ralph

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2004 13:16:03 -0500

Bernie - just for clarity, I'm guessing "Stateless DHCPv6 Service" (and 
your "Server" was a typo) is OK with you.

I must admit the use of "DHCPv6 specification" throughout the doc is a 
legacy from originally writing the doc prior to the publication of RFC 
3315.  I'll just use RFC 3315 throughout.

Regarding DHCPv6 vs. DHCP - I looked back and found we weren't consistent 
in RFC 3315, using mostly DHCP but also using DHCPv6 on a few (apparently 
random) occasions.  Either DHCP or DHCPv6 would be OK with me.    Anyone 
else have a preference?  I'll be sure the doc is consistent, whichever term 
we decide to use.

- Ralph

---

From: "Bernie Volz" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 13:27:06 -0500

Yes, server was a typo. Using RFC 3315 would be fine.

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:16 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt

- Ralph

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2004 10:19:52 +0900

Changed subject is easier than before to make sense 
what this draft is ...IMHO.

Regards

Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Laboratory, SAMSUNG Electronics 

> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On 
> Behalf Of Ralph Droms
> Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2004 12:58 AM
> To: [email-masked]

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2004 14:24:24 +0100

On Fri, Jan 02, 2004 at 01:16:03PM -0500, Ralph Droms wrote:
[...]
> else have a preference?  I'll be sure the doc is consistent, whichever term 

Personally I don't like the term DHCPv6 (in general adding v4/v6 to some
acronym). It sounds more like the 6th version of something. Since you
only talk about IPv6 DHCP in the document, I would much rather you say
that DHCP refers to DHCP for IPv6 like in RFC 3315.

To me, DHCPv6 is just a nickname.

Stig