Subject: RE: [dhcwg] NOTICE - dhc WG last call expires on <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-subid-00.txt>

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 07:47:31 -0400

Thanks Ted for the response on this draft.

However, it doesn't look good -- you're the only one to have responded.

And I don't have an responses on the remote-id draft
(draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt).

- Bernie 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ted Lemon [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Monday, July 18, 2005 4:52 PM
> To: Bernie Volz (volz)
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [dhcwg] NOTICE - dhc WG last call expires on 
> <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-subid-00.txt>
> 
> Er, thanks for the reminder.   Yes, we need this draft to happen.    
> Remote ID functionality is very useful.   Apologies for not  
> responding sooner.
> 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 20:52:26 +0900

The big challenge right now is that nobody is using this stuff, so  
there is no clamor for support.   A year or two from now, there will  
be lots of questions about why the Subscriber ID and Remote ID  
options aren't available for DHCPv6 if we don't advance these drafts  
now, but at the moment nobody is actually using DHCPv6 in production  
at any ISP of which I am aware, and I think that's why nobody is  
treating this as an urgent matter.

I would like to say, for the record, that I support the advancement  
of both these drafts, and I would also like to encourage other WG  
members to state their support for the advancement of these drafts;  
otherwise, when we need them, they will have expired and we will have  
to go through this process again.

---

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:56:16 +0200

> However, it doesn't look good -- you're the only one to have responded.

Yes, it doesn't.

Please folks, we need more responses! These drafts are fairly trivial and
easy to ready, so please read them and respond TODAY.

If you are happy with them you still need to response. No response does
not mean positive support. Of course you should also respond if you are
not happy.

The two drafts are:

	draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-subid-00.txt
	draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-remoteid-00.txt

Last calls for both end at 1700 EST today.

Stig

---

From: Kim Kinnear <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 10:11:45 -0400

I believe that both of these drafts are useful, and I support
both of them for moving forward through the IETF process.
(So, please consider this single email a positive response
for both drafts.)

Kim Kinnear

---

From: Josh Littlefield <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Jul 2005 13:03:15 -0400

I support advancement of both these drafts.  Having these options 
defined will be of major importance in some expected early uses of DHCv6.

Josh Littlefield

-- 
=====================================================================
Josh Littlefield                                  Cisco Systems, Inc.
[email-masked]                             1414 Massachusetts Avenue
tel: 978-936-1379  fax: same               Boxborough, MA  01719-2205