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:each at isc.org]
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
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.
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 -- each at isc.org
Internet Systems Consortium, Inc.
_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list
dhcwg at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg