Re: [dhcwg] Add WG item: draft-hunt-dhcpv6-clarify-mrc-00

[Evan Hunt <each at isc.org>]

> 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.