Subject: [dhcwg] Results of WG last call on draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4

From: Ralph Droms <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2004 11:01:43 -0400

draft-ietf-dhc-3315id-for-v4 did not pass WG last call.

Barr Hibbs raised the issue of creating a new DHCP option for the new client
identifier.  Bernie Volz responded,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03389.html
, and I infer from Barr's message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03478.html
that he now supports using the existing option 61 for the new client
identifier.

Barr also raised the issue of folding the definition of the new identifier
into the revision of RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.  Bernie and Ted Lemon responded,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03426.html
and
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03440.html,
and I infer from Barr's message
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03478.html
that he now supports moving forward with the new client identifier
independent of any revision of RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.

I asked about an example of a client identifier constructed according to
this draft,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03413.html

Finally, Barr provided some editorial corrections and suggestions,
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03478.html
and
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/working-groups/dhcwg/current/msg03479.html

So, we'll wait for a revision of the draft to be published and then
conduct another WG last call.

- Ralph

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg