Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Re: [Geopriv] Removing dhcp-lbyr dependency from policy-uri

At 08:17 AM 12/13/2011, Brian Rosen wrote:
>Option A. We have to make DHCP LbyR work one way or another. I
>don't mind waiting, and I want less work overall.

Option A - for the reasons stated above

James


>Brian
>
>On Dec 12, 2011, at 4:30 PM, Richard L. Barnes wrote:
>
> > Dear GEOPRIV,
> >
> > tl;dr: If you care about whether -policy-uri supports DHCP LbyR,
> please say so now.
> >
> > As you may be aware, we currently have three documents in IESG processing:
> > 1. -deref-protocol
> > 2. -policy-uri
> > 3. -dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
> >
> > The first of these are pretty non-controversial, while the last
> has some outstanding issues with the DHC working group. Right now,
> however, -policy-uri has a normative dependence on
> -dhcp-lbyr-uri-option, because it says how to carry policy URIs
> inside a DHCP LbyR option. This raises the question of whether we
> should remove the DHCP parts of -policy-uri in order to remove the dependency.
> >
> > So I wanted to get the feeling of the WG on which of three
> courses of action people would prefer:
> >
> > A: Do nothing for now.
> > If approved by the IESG, -policy-uri will sit in the RFC editor's
> queue waiting for -dhcp-lbyr-uri-option. If the objections in DHC
> cannot be overcome and that document dies, then we will work with
> the RFC editor to remove the text that depends on it.
> >
> > B: Remove the DHCP text now
> > This would remove the normative dependency, and leave open the
> possibility of adding the same mechanism as part of
> -dhcp-lbyr-uri-option later.
> >
> > C: Remove the DHCP text now and add it to -dhcp-lbyr-uri-option
> > This would just move the functionality from one document to
> another, removing the dependency while ensuring the functionality
> is maintained.
> >
> > For reference, I have attached a diff that describes the changes
> that would need to be made to -policy-uri in order to remove the dependency.
> >
> > If you have an opinion on this issue, it would be helpful if you
> could reply in this thread in the next week or so.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > --Richard
> >
> >
> > <rfcdiff-04-05prop.html>_______________________________________________
> > Geopriv mailing list
> > Geopriv@ietf.org
> > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv
>
>_______________________________________________
>Geopriv mailing list
>Geopriv@ietf.org
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv

_______________________________________________
Geopriv mailing list
Geopriv@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/geopriv