Subject: [dhcwg] DHCPv6 Redundancy considerations draft adoptions

From: Tomasz Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 05 Apr 2011 13:46:27 +0200

Dear chairs, dear group,
Last week during WG meeting in Prague I asked for confirmation that
DHCPv6 Redundancy Considerations draft is to be accepted as WG item.
Chairs agreed, but wanted to confirm on mailing list.

I would like to ask for draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01
adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise them
now.

Note: Intended status of this draft is BCP.

Thanks,
Tomek Mrugalski
ISC

Link to (currently expired) draft:
http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-jjmb-dhc-dhcpv6-redundancy-consider-01.txt

---

From: Bud Millwood <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 6 Apr 2011 11:52:14 +0200

No objections, quite the contrary. We're wondering why this approach is
being considered, because as far as we can tell, the DHCPv4 failover state
machine does not require too much modification to support inter-server
communication. But we'll wait for this discussion to get started!

- Bud

On Tue, Apr 5, 2011 at 1:46 PM, Tomasz Mrugalski <[email-masked]
> wrote:

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

---

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 9 Apr 2011 17:50:12 -0400

> adoption as a WG item. If you do have any objections, please raise them

Strictly speaking, the chairs are supposed to do the call for adoption, but given our stellar performance in recent months, I'm going to pretend that that's what happened, since your message was phrased correctly.   I will assess consensus (since this is originally John's draft) next Tuesday afternoon.

FTR, I am in favor of adoption, and thus far have seen several messages in favor and none in opposition.   So if anyone thinks this is a bad idea, better speak up.