Re: [dhcwg] draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt

[Kim Kinnear <kkinnear at cisco.com>]

Prior to this update, I performed an exhausting, excuse me,
exhaustive search of my email archives for any comments
concerning this draft.  I included everything I found, but I
managed to completely miss the "tickets" for this draft.

I will re-issue soon yet another version of the draft with the
changes (all relatively minor) that will clear the tickets
currently outstanding and increase the clarity of the draft.

One of the tickets concerns #2, below, which I already handled.

Regards,

Kim



At 02:18 PM 3/3/2009, Kim Kinnear wrote:

>I have submitted a new version of the VPN option draft today:
>
>http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-ietf-dhc-vpn-option-10.txt
>
>The changes were:
>
>  1.  Clarified the response of a DHCPv6 server to the appearance
>  of the DHCPv6 VSS option in the ORO or ERO options.
>  Specifically, the draft says that for the VSS option the
>  processing specified in the draft concerning the DHCPv6 VSS
>  option takes precedence over any activity implied by the
>  appearance of the DHCPV6 VSS option in the ERO or ORO options.
>  This was based on a discussion largely between Bernie Volz and
>  David Hankins (though others contributed) concerning this
>  issue.
>
>  2.  Added more words to make it clear that if you use a
>  DHCPv4 relay agent that supports the VSS sub-option and you
>  configure it to send that sub-option to a DHCPv4 server, then
>  you MUST also use a DHCPv4 server that supports the VSS
>  sub-option.  This was based on a discussion with Alfred Hoenes.
>
>  3.  A variety of editorial corrections were made, based on
>  several respondents, though largely based on reviews by Alfred
>  Hoenes and Josh Littlefield.
>
>  4. Updated to new boilerplate.  I didn't include the text
>  suggested by idnits concerning the inclusion of old text
>  or information as all there is nothing in this draft that
>  is an issue and the authors are all still available.  I
>  *think* I got that right, but you never know.
>
>In all cases above, I believe these changes clarified the
>original intent of the draft and did not change the behavior that
>had already passed the DHC WG last call.  As such (and for a
>change), I don't think this draft needs to go through a DHC WG
>last call again.
>
>I believe that this draft is ready to progress to the next step
>after last call.
>
>Regards -- Kim