If we do need to handle it, I would ask that we still have only one document that describes DHCP handling. This would include describing how the SAVI devices knows which mode is applicable (either by configuration or by sniffing, if that is effective.)
I think it would do the group a disservice, and confuse readers, if we had two different DHCP documents for different cases.
Yours, Joel Frank Xia wrote:
Hi Christian I am fine with adopting this document as a WG draft. However, this draft, imho, is limited when applying for public access networks, especially broadband networks. I would like to ask WG to consider to adopt DHCP-PD based solution as a compliment. http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-kaippallimalil-savi-dhcp-pd-00.txt BR Frank----- Original Message ----- From: "Christian Vogt" <christian.vogt at ericsson.com>To: "SAVI Mailing List" <savi at ietf.org> Cc: "Guang Yao" <yaoa02 at mails.tsinghua.edu.cn> Sent: Monday, November 09, 2009 4:44 AM Subject: [savi] Consensus call on adopting draft-bi-savi-dhcp-00 Folks - During the SAVI working group meeting today, we made a consensus check about adopting Internet draft "draft-bi-savi-dhcp-00" as a working group document, showing a clear majority of attendees in favor. I would now like to initiate a confirming consensus call here on the mailing list. Please answer the following question with either "yes" or "no": Should the SAVI working group adopt Internet draft "draft-bi-savi-dhcp-00" as a starting point for the SAVI protocol specification for DHCP-assigned IP addresses? Please respond before Friday, November 20. I am attaching Internet draft "draft-bi-savi-dhcp-00" for your convenience. - Christian--------------------------------------------------------------------------------_______________________________________________ savi mailing list savi at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi_______________________________________________ savi mailing list savi at ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/savi
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.