Subject: [dhcwg] Adopting draft-dhankins-atomic-dhcp-00 as wg work item

From: Stig Venaas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 12:46:42 +0100

There was consensus at the dhc wg meeting in San Diego to adopt
draft-dhankins-atomic-dhcp-00 as a dhc wg work item. For details
see the minutes at
http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06nov/minutes/dhc.txt

If there are no objections posted to the wg mailing list, the
chairs will accept the draft as a wg work item on 2007-02-09.

Stig

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

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 09:38:21 -0800

> chairs will accept the draft as a wg work item on 2007-02-09.

As I recall the consensus was to reform the document to move the
(extensive) discussion of ISC's implementation into a stripped-down
summary in an appendix (if retain it at all) and to expand upon
the advice to draft authors.

Consequently the draft probably won't be named 'atomic dhcp'
after that.

I am unsure if I'm going to be able to complete that prior to the
IETF 68 cutoff date...very busy at our office here.

-- 
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 13:40:36 -0500

I recall the same. But, I also see no reason to allow the reworked draft
to be published as a DHC WG work item (rather than first as an
indidivual submission).

- Bernie 

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Hankins [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, January 26, 2007 12:38 PM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Adopting draft-dhankins-atomic-dhcp-00 as wg work
item

---

From: "David W. Hankins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 27 Jan 2007 20:03:04 +0000

> to be published as a DHC WG work item (rather than first as an

It does feel like we're pushing the process a little far for
expedience that isn't necessary.

I have no problem making the reworked document a new individual
submission so it can be judged on its new merits.