Dynamic Host Configuration
- Ready for external review (06-02)
- Approve (06-05)
- Ready w/o external review (07-00)
- Ready for external review (08-00)
- Approve (08-00)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07-00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"
(Spencer Dawkins) Yes
Comment (2014-08-05 for -07-00)
I have just a couple of nittish comments, but on the whole, I think the charter is fine. In this text: The DHC WG is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions. Definitions of new DHCP options that are delivered using standard mechanisms with documented semantics are not considered a protocol extension and thus are outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such options should be defined within their respective WGs and reviewed by the DHCP Directorate. However, if such options require protocol extensions or new semantics, the protocol extension work must be done in the DHC WG. -- when I read this without trying to extrapolate, I’m seeing “semantics” popping in and out of the picture. For instance, if I require protocol extensions and new semantics, the last sentence tells me where to do the protocol extension work but is silent about where to do the new semantics. You might consider either s/protocol extensions/protocol extensions and semantics/ or just saying “is responsible for defining DHCP protocol extensions, including new semantics” and then dropping further reference to semantics separately. In this text: 1. Develop extensions to the DHCPv6 infrastructure as required to meet new applications and deployments of DHCP. -- is “infrastructure” the right word? I was kind of expecting to see something like “protocol”, which may not be right, but I’m not sure what we’re talking about if it’s not something like “protocol”. In this text: Additional topics may only be added with approval from the responsible Area Director or by re-chartering. -- perhaps it’s better to pick one way of adding topics? -- If the responsible AD can add topics without re-chartering, won’t the charter become increasingly out of step? Or are you thinking you’d just add milestones without updating the charter text itself?
(Ted Lemon) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
(Richard Barnes) No Objection
Alissa Cooper No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
(Brian Haberman) (was Block) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection
Comment (2014-08-06 for -07-01)
would be nice if the charter clarfied what this item means. - DHCP provisioning of IPv4 clients over IPv6 networks
Barry Leiba No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection
(Pete Resnick) No Objection
(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection
Comment (2014-08-06 for -07-00)
I know we do not take the milestones into account in our review, but it would be good to get them updated before sending the charter out for review.