Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 06:50:32 -0400

This message announces a WG last call on "DHCP: IPv4 and IPv6
Dual-Stack Issues" <draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03>.  The last call will
conclude at 1700 EDT (USA) on 2005-08-09.

Please respond to this WG last call.  If you support acceptance of the
document without change, respond with a simple acknowledgment, so that
support for the document can be assessed.  Lack of discussion does not
represent positive support.  If there is no expression of support for
acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced
to the IESG.

Summary: A node may have support for communications using IPv4 and/or
IPv6 protocols.  Such a node may wish to obtain IPv4 and/or IPv6
configuration settings via the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol
(DHCP).  The original version of DHCP (RFC 2131) designed for IPv4 has
now been complemented by a new DHCPv6 (RFC 3315) for IPv6.  This
document describes issues identified with dual IP version DHCP
interactions, the most important aspect of which is how to handle
potential problems in clients processing configuration information
received from both DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 servers.  The document makes a
recommendation on the general strategy on how best to handle such
issues, and identifies future work to be undertaken.

This draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03.txt

- Ralph Droms 

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 2005 10:33:14 -0700

A couple of editorial comments: s/concensus/consensus/.   Also,  
Section 3.3, paragraph 2, first sentence, you have an extra  
prepositional phrase that you don't need (two froms).

On a less editorial note, I would really have liked it if the  
conclusions had stated that some members of the WG (that is, me),  
believe that we can't solve this problem until we have more experience.

I don't object to moving the draft go forward as written, but would  
prefer that a note to this effect be added to the conclusion, if  
people are okay with it.

---

From: Soohong Daniel Park <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2005 09:37:19 +0900

It is a good job and I support this document to be moved forward.

Thanks all authors.

---------------------------------------
Daniel (Soohong Daniel Park)
Mobile Platform Lab., SAMSUNG Electronics.

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ralph Droms
Sent: Tuesday, July 26, 2005 7:51 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dual-stack-03

- Ralph Droms