Subject: [mif] Issue #17: Status of DHCP Route Option should be clarified

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 9 Nov 2012 07:08:26 -0500

This issue claims that we should issue another WGLC before sending the DHCPv6 Route Option draft to the IESG.

This is not an issue with the document itself.  It is typical for us to issue another WGLC if there are substantive changes to a document based on previous WGLC comments, and not to issue another WGLC if there are no substantive changes.  Is there any reason that this case should be handled differently?

I propose that we close this issue with no changes to the document, because it does not concern contents of the document.  

Thoughts?
Margaret