Changes between Version 1 and Version 2 of IETF90

25/07/14 02:03:22 (8 years ago)



  • IETF90

    v1 v2  
     1 == DHC ==
     3DHC WG met on Wednesday morning. The session was attended by 44 people and lasted
     4the full 150 minutes allocated.
     6Since IETF 89, there were two RFCs published, RFC 7227 and 7283, and one document is
     7still in the RFC editor queue. 5 internet-drafts were last called, with 4 passing and 1
     8failing. 2 of the passed documents have been sent back to the WG by the AD and the
     9other 2 are shortly due to go to the AD. 1 call for adoption was issued
     10(draft-csf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation) and it was adopted.
     12Nine presentations were presented.
     14Tomek Mrugalski gave an update on the RFC-3315bis work status and also discussed
     15several issues to gain input.
     17Bernie Volz gave an update on draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateful-issues and also discussed
     18the outstanding issues to gain input.
     20Dacheng Zhang updated on the group on draft-ietf-dhc-sedhcpv6 and discussed an open
     21issue that was raised after WGLC.
     23Tomek Mrugalski updated the group on the status of draft-ietf-dhc-topo-conf and to
     24confirm that the WG feels this is ready for last call.
     26Qi Sun presented draft-ietf-dhc-dynamic-shared-v4allocation.
     28Kim Kinnear discussed what has happened with draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-failover-design
     29after the AD sent the work back to the WG. The failover-design document is being
     30revised and some of the material is moving to a new failover-protocol document.
     32Tomek Mrugalski asked whether the WG should consider working on a DHCP Privacy
     33Considerations document. There was interest and a half dozen volunteered to
     34contribute and co-author.
     36Li Xue presented draft-xue-dhc-dynamic-gre and there was a discussion as to where
     37this work should occur.
     39Suresh Krishnan was asked to update the group on the Multiple Provisioning Domains
     40work being done in MIF. This was informational only as issues would be discussed in