Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 10:43:13 -0500

This message announces a WG last call on "DHCPv6 Relay Agent Echo
Request Option" <draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-00.txt>.  The last call
will conclude at 1700EST, Mon, 2007-02-05.

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.

draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-00.txt defines a Relay Agent Echo Request
option for the Dynamic Host Configuration Protocol for IPv6 (DHCPv6).
The option allows a DHCPv6 relay agent to request a list of relay
agent options that the server echoes back to the relay agent..  This
draft is available as
http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero-00.txt

- Ralph Droms 

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

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 08:44:27 -0800

> acceptance during the WG last call, the document will not be advanced

I support acceptance of the document with *very* minor editorial
changes that I'm sure would have been made anyway.

   However, DHCPv6 [2] does not require the server to do so.  As matter
   of fact, for certain relay agent options, the server is required to

"As matter of fact," doesn't read quite right.

I suggest "As a matter of fact," or possibly "In fact,".

The authors also may want to consider:

   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in [1].

Naming the RFC before the reference number.  It saves the reader
from having to perform a lookup (although most of us probably know
the number).

This is a well written document.  It is concise and simple.  I think
there is actually more 'IETF Cruft' in this document than 'DHCP
Signal'.  The IPR and Security sections and so forth.

It is a needed document, as it vastly simplifies a scary area of
DHCPv6 relay agent and server interactions in a nice, simple way.

As far as I know, "Echo Request" is not a term used by Verisign's
marketing department, which evidently is now one of those things we
need to check before sending drafts to the IESG.  Their web site's
search tool does not put the two words together in the same sentence.

Does anyone have a contact at Verisign marketing to determine if
they plan to use these words in marketing literature between now
and the IESG's review of this draft?

The term does appear in google, but is clearly delineated as 'ICMP
Echo Request' if not in title, then later in context.  There should
be no confusion with a DHCPv6 'Relay Agent Echo Request Option', so
long as these clear prefixes and suffixes are always present.

That is, I do not expect that anyone can reasonably interpret
this document such that would leave them to believe that this
ERO is intended to carry an ICMP Echo Request.  That is too far
fetched, even for the IETF.

Besides, a 'DHCPv6 Echo Request Option' PDF appears on the second
page.

I'm not sure where this sarcastic and acrimonous attitude of mine
came from this morning.

Maybe I just haven't had enough caffeine.

-- 
David W. Hankins	"If you don't do it right the first time,
Software Engineer		you'll just have to do it again."
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.	-- Jack T. Hankins
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Bernie Volz \(volz\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 13:38:36 -0500

Well, for what it is worth (as a co-author), I also approve.

I agree with David's comment regarding "As matter of fact".

Regarding his other comment on the references, those will be reworked by
the rfc-editor anyway -- so not sure it is necesssary.

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: Ralph Droms (rdroms) 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 10:43 AM
To: dhcwg
Subject: [dhcwg] dhc WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-ero

- Ralph Droms