Subject: [dhcwg] Add WG item: draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 00:27:17 -0700

This was discussed at the San Francisco IETF, and the consensus in the  
room was to adopt it as a working group item.   The draft clarifies an  
ambiguity in the handling of the Maximum Retry Count (MRC) constant.   
This draft will become a working group item if no objections are heard  
prior to Thursday, 7/2/2009, by 5:00 pm.

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2009 22:06:11 -0400

While I have no objection to taking this on, I do wonder whether it is
time for the DHC WG to consider a 3315bis document. I'd be willing to
work on this (as "editor"). And, I think it would be preferable to have
a 'new' replacement document rather than having lots of little documents
(though getting to the replacement document may take some time).

So, for the MRC issue, I'd prefer to see this rolled into a 3315bis
rather than having it end up as its own RFC.

Perhaps something the DHC chairs can discuss at the Stockholm IETF (I
don't be there as I'll be in China for the July 22, 2009 total solar
eclipse and sightseeing).

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf
Of Ted Lemon
Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 3:27 AM
To: dhc WG
Subject: [dhcwg] Add WG item: draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00

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

---

From: "Bernie Volz (volz)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:05:08 -0400

I do have a collection of additional RFC 3315 issues (including a list
of 28 issues reported by Fred Templin back in 2006 - though not all may
be things to correct). 

I've tried to save these issues in a separate email folder as they were
reported, but I'm sure I missed a few too. And perhaps not all have been
reported via email - such as some of the issues we discussed at the
Comcast sponsored DHCPv6 bake-offs.

Most of the collected issues are 'minor' (inconsistencies and wording
improvements). Some may require a bit of debate.

I guess one strategy would be to start an I-D of RFC 3315
corrections/clarifications which could then be used to construct the
3315bis or if no one has the stomach for that effort, just published on
its own. While for the editor this seems a bit more work than just
working on the 3315bis, it is likely more useful for reviewers as they
can clearly see the changes (rather than having to find the few changes
in a 100 page document).

So, if I have some time I'll start that I-D ... we can then role
draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00 into it or continue it as a separate
document -- and just reference it in the new I-D. 

- Bernie

-----Original Message-----
From: Evan Hunt [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Friday, June 26, 2009 12:27 AM
To: Bernie Volz (volz)
Cc: Ted Lemon; dhc WG
Subject: Re: [dhcwg] Add WG item: draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00

> rather than having it end up as its own RFC.

For the record, as the author of the clarify-MRC draft, I would be okay
with this, and in fact I suggested it in San Francisco.  The draft
resolves
a simple ambiguity in 3315--prescribing a single interpretation for text
that formerly could have been read in two ways--and thus, from an
information theory standpoint, it contains exactly one bit of
information.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like an RFC to have more bits in it than
its
RFC number does.

However, when I proposed a -bis document at the working group meeting,
it seemed to be the consensus of the room that there weren't enough
known
errata in 3315 which had had demonstrable effects on interoperability to
justify a -bis document in the near future, and so we should push ahead
with the draft in the meantime.

The MRC ambiguity is fairly minor, but I'd like to see it resolved
sooner
not later.  If there is in fact lots of material for a 3315-bis now,
then
I support the creation of such a document.  But if it's going to be a
slow
accretion over years, then I would prefer not to halt the progress of
clarify-MRC while we wait.

--
Evan Hunt -- [email-masked]
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.

---

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 09:59:02 -0400

Depending on the nature of the issues, the RFC errata mechanism might  
be appropriate.

- Ralph

---

From: Evan Hunt <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2009 04:27:28 +0000

For the record, as the author of the clarify-MRC draft, I would be okay
with this, and in fact I suggested it in San Francisco.  The draft resolves
a simple ambiguity in 3315--prescribing a single interpretation for text
that formerly could have been read in two ways--and thus, from an
information theory standpoint, it contains exactly one bit of information.

Call me old-fashioned, but I like an RFC to have more bits in it than its
RFC number does.

it seemed to be the consensus of the room that there weren't enough known

The MRC ambiguity is fairly minor, but I'd like to see it resolved sooner
not later.  If there is in fact lots of material for a 3315-bis now, then
I support the creation of such a document.  But if it's going to be a slow
accretion over years, then I would prefer not to halt the progress of
clarify-MRC while we wait.