Subject: Announcing DHCPv6 interim meeting in August

From: Ted Lemon <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 05 Aug 2000 02:42:23 -0400

[Sorry this took so long - I had a little run-in with listproc...]

During the WG meeting on DHCPv6 in Pittsburgh, several things became
clear:

(1) We need DHCPv6 ASAP - within the next six months, at the latest.
(2) We do not have consensus now, and we aren't going to get it
    without some major changes.

After the WG meeting, some of us stuck around (all WG meeting
participants were invited) and talked about how to proceed.  We did
our best not to talk about substantive protocol issues, but rather
about how to get from where we are now to having a proposed standard
in six months.

What I proposed, and what the people in the group agreed to, is that
we can't waste time with competing proposals - we need to figure out
how to take the existing draft and make it something that people will
want to implement, and will agree to in the WG.

The way we are going to accomplish this is as follows:

(1) Everybody who is strongly interested is going to read the current
    draft over carefully, if they haven't already, or if only as a
    means of accomplishing (2): 
(2) Each of us is going to make a list of the things that are in the
    draft that aren't okay with us, and a list of things that are not
    in the draft that we would like to see in the draft.
(3) We will each publish this information on the DHCPv6 mailing list.
(4) About two or three weeks from now (Ralph will announce the date
    and location - we are tentatively shooting for August 22nd), we
    are going to have a teleconference.  We are going to go into the
    teleconference prepared to compromise.   We are going to walk out
    of the conference _with_ a compromise. 

Any IETF member is invited to participate, but we need to be very
clear about this: you *must* do your homework.   I say this as someone
who is as guilty as the rest, but we can't afford to have hypothetical
discussions here - this is the real deal.

If you have ideas that can go in later drafts, please figure out how
to make sure that the current draft doesn't preclude them, and be
prepared to spend minimal time talking about them.

Please be prepared for the possibility that you will not walk out of
the meeting with everything you want, and decide up front in a very
serious way which things you really, really need, and which things
would just be kind of nice.   I am directing this not only at the
authors of the draft, but those who have not been directly involved in
authoring the draft, but have strong ideas about it, which includes
me.   You have my promise that I will hold myself to this.   The
only things that I consider non-negotiable going into this discussion
are:

(1) We will have a draft that's ready to go to PS by the next IETF.
(2) It will be something that people will be willing to implement.
(3) It will work.

Thanks!

                                _MelloN_

---

From: Jim Bound <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2000 00:16:27 -0400

Great message Ted.
thank you very much (and Ralph too).
/jim

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 09 Aug 2000 18:24:20 +0200

In your previous mail you wrote:

=> I strongly agree!

=> I have already sent this to authors... The only thing I can add is:
get rid of the crazy Posix time stuff!

=> I don't understand why we need (4) because obviously the previous steps,
including this one (3), were NOT done! I know a face to face meeting
is better than a mailing list but the problem is not we were not able
to reach an agreement in the mailing-list: the mailing-list was near
dead before Michael burst of mails...

=> teleconference (not easy with participants on at least 3 continents)
seems to have been replaced by an interim meeting.

=> the homework has been done here (:-)... I am considering to
distrib our implementation (done by a student in a bit more than 2 months
with all the hairy address stuff).

Regards

[email-masked]