On May 20, 2009, at 6:34 AM, Bernie Volz (volz) wrote:
We should also ask what was the history for this work and did the 6man WG send it on to the DHC WG? (If so, we'd be going around in circles sending it back to them.)
You make many excellent points, with which I entirely agree, so I won't comment on them, but just a reality check here - even if we are in a loop with 6man (and I have to admit I don't know if we are), I would *still* argue that the dhc working group is the wrong place to originate this document. If there is no working group that's chartered for this document, it should just be an internet area or routing area document or, as you say, a new working group should be chartered to shepherd it. The reason I say this is, first, that the dhc working group would have to recharter to take on this work, and therefore it doesn't save time for dhc to do it, and second, that this particular topic isn't even really related to the dhc working group charter, so it's a weird stretch for us to be considering it.
But that's the point of having this discussion. If in fact the wg in general wants to take on this work, perhaps we should. Historically the wg has done work like this in the past - e.g., the classless static routes option and the original static routes option and default routers option in dhcpv4. But the topic was much less contentious there. So I'm asking the question in order to find out what people think - should we try to do this work, or not?