Subject: [dhcwg] Agenda items for IETF 81 meeting...

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2011 13:28:53 -0400

I'm pretty sure we are going to need to have a meeting, but what with the overcrowding of the IETF agenda at recent meetings, they'd like us to do a slightly better job of figuring out exactly how much time we need, and what we'll be talking about.   So if you plan to have a discussion at the IETF 81 dhcwg meeting, please send in your request for time now.

Thanks!

---

From: Tomasz Mrugalski <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 06 Jun 2011 22:07:01 +0200

On 06.06.2011 19:28, Ted Lemon wrote:
> I'm pretty sure we are going to need to have a meeting, but what with
> the overcrowding of the IETF agenda at recent meetings, they'd like
> us to do a slightly better job of figuring out exactly how much time
> we need, and what we'll be talking about.   So if you plan to have a
> discussion at the IETF 81 dhcwg meeting, please send in your request
> for time now.
I'd like to present four things:

1. DHCPv6 failover requirements document - there is no submitted draft
yet, but there are quite a few people working on this right now. We are
expecting to submit initial draft before dead-line for Quebec City. It's
hard to estimate the actual time, but that's not easy topic, so I
suppose at least 20 minutes is required, but your guess is as good as
mine. Exact naming is TBD, but it will be similar to
draft-something-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-requirements-00.txt.

2. DHCPv6 Route options - There is Route Option defined in
draft-ietf-mif-dhcpv6-route-option-01. It is adopted by MIF WG, but it
would be good to also present and review it in DHC. There are various
opinions on routing configuration over DHCPv6, so at least a bit of
discussion is expected. I suppose 10 minutes will suffice.

3. DHCPv6 4rd Options - During Prague meeting, Remi Despres presented
proposed DHCPv6 options required for 4rd configuration and requested for
involvement from DHC members. I volunteered. There is new draft expected
to be submitted soon. draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-4rd-00. It's collection
of quite simple options, so 5 minutes is probably enough.

4. DHCPv6 suboptions draft - a simple clarification draft about
requesting options within other options (by putting instances of ORO
within other options). It is draft-mrugalski-dhc-dhcpv6-suboptions-01.
It is simple and hopefully not controversial, so 5 minutes is probably ok.

Note: All of those draft already are or will soon be discussed on
mailing list.

Thanks,
Tomek

---

From: Jiangsheng <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2011 03:46:42 +0000

Hi, Ted & John,

draft-ietf-dhc-secure-dhcpv6 has been WG draft for a while and is quite stable. I would like to briefly present it in IETF 81 meeting and request to move to WGLC.

I think 5 mins slot can work. Many thanks.

Best regards,

Sheng

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
> Of Ted Lemon
> Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 1:29 AM
> To: [email-masked] WG
> Subject: [dhcwg] Agenda items for IETF 81 meeting...
> 
> the overcrowding of the IETF agenda at recent meetings, they'd like us
> to do a slightly better job of figuring out exactly how much time we
> need, and what we'll be talking about.   So if you plan to have a
> _______________________________________________
> dhcwg mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg

---

From: "Brzozowski, John" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2011 00:28:23 +0000

Second call for agenda items, please reply to Ted and myself with requests.

Thanks,

John

On 6/6/11 1:28 PM, "Ted Lemon" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>I'm pretty sure we are going to need to have a meeting, but what with the
>overcrowding of the IETF agenda at recent meetings, they'd like us to do
>a slightly better job of figuring out exactly how much time we need, and
>what we'll be talking about.   So if you plan to have a discussion at the
>IETF 81 dhcwg meeting, please send in your request for time now.
>
>Thanks!
>