[dhcwg] Re: Ketan Talaulikar's No Objection on draft-ietf- dhc-rfc8415bis-09: (with COMMENT)

Hi Bernie,

Thanks for following up on my comments.

The section 7.2 (UDP ports) rewrite is much better indeed and addresses my
comments/suggestions. I didn't want to propose more drastic changes, but I
am very happy with what has been done. Thanks.

For the rest, please feel free to share PR links or diffs if you would like
me to check/confirm before posting.

Thanks,
Ketan


On Fri, May 9, 2025 at 1:50 AM Bernie Volz <[email protected]> wrote:

> I created https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/issues/70 yesterday as
> these were minor corrections from Ketan’s comments which we definitely want
> to do.
>
> I just created https://github.com/dhcwg/rfc8415bis/issues/71 with the
> “remove old stuff” comments. As this really is one task, don’t need
> separate issues. And Eric V thought it was worthwhile to do.
>
> There will be one or two other issues soon to cover remaining comments.
>
> The “7.2. UDP Ports” issue likely will be ignored as that section has
> been mostly rewritten in -10 from earlier comments by others. So, Ketan you
> might want to look at -10 to see if that section is now acceptable.
>
> - Bernie
>
> On May 8, 2025, at 11:33 AM, Ketan Talaulikar <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> 
> Hi Michael,
>
> Thanks for your response. Happy to work with you and co-authors on
> addressing the comments.
>
> Thanks,
> Ketan
>
>
> On Thu, May 8, 2025 at 6:21 PM Michael Richardson <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Ketan Talaulikar via Datatracker <[email protected]> wrote:
>>     > 274     1.1.  Relationship to Previous DHCPv6 Standards
>>
>>     > 276        The initial specification of DHCPv6 was defined in
>> [RFC3315], and a
>>     > 277        number of follow-up documents were published over the
>> years:
>>
>>     > <major> I see that this document is trying to carry forward history
>> prior
>>     > to RFC8415 about DHCPv6 specifications. I find this concerning
>> since it asks
>>     > the reader to go back to those old and obsoleted documents when
>> reading
>>     > this
>>
>> I think that point is to say that all those documents were incorporated
>> in,
>> so you don't need to read them.  Also that text was in RFC8415, and we are
>> supposed to make minimal changes :-)
>> All the documents listed are informative.
>>
>> One of us will turn your comments into github issues.
>>
>> --
>> Michael Richardson <[email protected]>, Sandelman Software Works
>>  -= IPv6 IoT consulting =-                      *I*LIKE*TRAINS*
>>
>>
>>
>>

_______________________________________________
dhcwg mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]