Hi:

While perhaps a bit early, we are starting the call for agenda items for the dhc wg meeting. And, as late June and July tend to be a prime vacation periods, perhaps best to get people to start thinking about this now.

We have asked for two slots:

-          One 2 ½ hour slot for the usual dhc wg meeting

-          One 1 hour slot as a joint meeting with the sunset4 wg to discuss http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-perreault-sunset4-noipv4

If you have a draft you would like to discuss, please send your request for agenda time to the dhc chairs. Please include:

-          the title and file name of the draft

-          a brief summary of why it needs to be discussed

-          the speakers name (and email)

-          and how much time you need will need for presentation and anticipated discussion.

We will give priority, if needed, to requests for documents that are currently working group items or were actively discussed on the mailing list.

We do expect to spend some time discussing a re-charter and also a DHCP directorate (more on this before the meeting).

Please have agenda items to us by 2013-07-01 (Monday) and also note the following deadlines for IETF87:

2013-07-08 (Monday): Internet Draft Cut-off for initial document (-00) submission by UTC 24:00

2013-07-15 (Monday): Internet Draft final submission cut-off by UTC 24:00

For full details about the meeting, see http://www.ietf.org/meetings/87/.

-          Tomek & Bernie

Hi:

Sorry for the delay in announcing the result … we feel that this document has sufficient support to adopt in the working group. And, as there isn’t another home for this work within the IETF, it is appropriate for the DHC WG to take it on.

Authors, please publish a WG document as soon as you can.

-          Tomek & Bernie

Hi all:

The authors have requested a call for adoption by the WG for draft-bhandari-dhc-access-network-identifier-04.

This call is being initiated to confirm whether there is WG consensus to adopt this work as DHC WG draft. Please state whether or not you're in favor of the adoption by replying to this mail. If you are not in favor, please also state your objections in your response. This adoption call will complete on May 2nd, 2013.

Note that the 04 draft was just published and has redesigned options to better follow the option guidelines.

The HTML version of the document can be viewed at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-bhandari-dhc-access-network-identifier-04.

Regards,

Tomek & Bernie

Hi:

This is an updated version of this document. It includes a few minor changes from the WG last call and is there mostly to restore this document as it has expired a few days ago.

I still have a bunch of the comments from the WG Last Call in January/February to address.

There is also one key issue that will need some discussion from the WG. In particular, handling of Rebind requests.

One major flaw with respect to the Rebind message handling in RFC 3315 and this draft is that as the client has sent the Rebind to multiple servers, all of which could respond, there is no way for a particular server to know whether its Reply will be accepted by the client. This is essentially the same issue with using Rapid Commit in a Solicit when there are multiple servers available.

I think the Rebind processing should essentially be changed so that a server will either return everything the client requested to be rebound (and nothing more) or nothing (in which case it returns NoBinding status for all bindings).

If the server is willing to extend (or grant) the existing leases, the Rebind is fine. If the server is unwilling or unable, then it should force the client back into a Request phase as described in RFC 3315 section  18.1.8. That 18.1.8 section is also the only place a NoBinding status appears to be mentioned in terms of the Rebind.

-          Bernie