RE: Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
Bernie Volz <volz <at> metrocast.net>
2004-01-02 18:27:06 GMT
Yes, server was a typo. Using RFC 3315 would be fine.
From: Ralph Droms [mailto:rdroms <at> cisco.com]
Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 1:16 PM
To: Bernie Volz
Cc: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
Subject: RE: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
Bernie - just for clarity, I'm guessing "Stateless DHCPv6 Service" (and
your "Server" was a typo) is OK with you.
I must admit the use of "DHCPv6 specification" throughout the doc is a
legacy from originally writing the doc prior to the publication of RFC
3315. I'll just use RFC 3315 throughout.
Regarding DHCPv6 vs. DHCP - I looked back and found we weren't consistent
in RFC 3315, using mostly DHCP but also using DHCPv6 on a few (apparently
random) occasions. Either DHCP or DHCPv6 would be OK with me. Anyone
else have a preference? I'll be sure the doc is consistent, whichever term
we decide to use.
At 11:49 AM 1/2/2004 -0500, Bernie Volz wrote:
>I don't have any objection to changing the document name to "Stateless
>I would suggest that perhaps section 4 have an explicit reference to RFC
>3315 and DHCPv6:
>4. Basic Requirements for Implementation of DHCP
> Several sections of the DHCPv6 specification  provide background
> ^^ ^^^
> information or define parts of the specification that are common
> to all implementations:
>Note that in most places you refer to RFC 3315 as "DHCPv6 specification"
>not DHCP specification.
>Also, you should review your use of DHCP vs. DHCPv6 throughout. In section
>2, you state "Throughout this document, "DHCP" refers to DHCP for IPv6."
>DHCPv6 is used fairly frequently. Personally, I'd prefer that "DHCPv6" be
>used instead of just "DHCP". But, whichever you decide, I think it
>that the usage is consistent.
>From: dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org [mailto:dhcwg-admin <at> ietf.org] On Behalf Of Ralph
>Sent: Friday, January 02, 2004 10:58 AM
>To: dhcwg <at> ietf.org
>Subject: [dhcwg] Title for draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt
>The IESG is reviewing draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt, "A Guide to
>Implementing Stateless DHCPv6 Service". There is a request to change the
>title to simply "Stateless DHCPv6 Service", because the document defines a
>subset of RFC 3315, rather than giving a guide to implementing RFC 3315.
>I am concerned that there has been confusion in the past that
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt is simply a reference into RFC 3315,
>and that draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt does *not* describe a new
>protocol. If the WG is confident that the change won't add to the
>for confusion and there are no other objections, I'll change the title of
>draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-stateless-03.txt to "Stateless DHCPv6 Service"
>dhcwg mailing list
>dhcwg <at> ietf.org