From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: WG Review: Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
The Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc) WG in the Internet Area of the IETF is
undergoing rechartering. The IESG has not made any determination yet. The
following draft charter was submitted, and is provided for informational
purposes only. Please send your comments to the IESG mailing list
(iesg@ietf.org) by 2018-03-06.
Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Active WG
Chairs:
Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Internet Area Directors:
Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Mailing list:
Address: dhcwg@ietf.org
To subscribe: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/
Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dhc/
Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dhc/
The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other parameters. DHCPv4 is
currently a Draft Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.
DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated. The WG
plans to advance the DHCPv6 protocol to full standard.
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 generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
options should be defined within their respective WGs or sponsored by an
appropriate AD and reviewed by DHCP experts in the Internet Area
Directorate. However, if such options require protocol extensions or new
semantics, the protocol extension work must be done in the DHC WG.
The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
1. Informational documents providing operational or implementation advice
about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for
operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients, and relay
agents.
2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
(that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
considerations are properly documented.
3. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
an appropriate interval following publication, advance to full standard.
Milestones:
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-lwm2m-bootstrap-options
Aug 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang
Mar 2019 - Advance 3315bis RFC to Internet Standard
WG action announcement
WG Action Announcement
From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: dhc-chairs@ietf.org,
The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>,
dhcwg@ietf.org
Subject: WG Action: Rechartered Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
The Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc) WG in the Internet Area of the IETF has
been rechartered. For additional information, please contact the Area
Directors or the WG Chairs.
Dynamic Host Configuration (dhc)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Current status: Active WG
Chairs:
Bernie Volz <volz@cisco.com>
Tomek Mrugalski <tomasz.mrugalski@gmail.com>
Assigned Area Director:
Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Internet Area Directors:
Terry Manderson <terry.manderson@icann.org>
Suresh Krishnan <suresh@kaloom.com>
Mailing list:
Address: dhcwg@ietf.org
To subscribe: http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dhcwg
Archive: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dhcwg/
Group page: https://datatracker.ietf.org/group/dhc/
Charter: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/charter-ietf-dhc/
The Dynamic Host Configuration Working Group (DHC WG) has developed DHCP
for automated allocation, configuration and management of IP addresses,
IPv6 prefixes, IP protocol stack and other parameters. DHCPv4 is
currently a Draft Standard and is documented in RFC 2131 and RFC 2132.
DHCPv6 is currently a Proposed Standard and is being updated. The WG
plans to advance the DHCPv6 protocol to Internet standard.
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 generally outside of scope for the DHC WG. Such
options should be defined within their respective WGs or sponsored by an
appropriate AD and reviewed by DHCP experts in the Internet Area
Directorate. However, if such options require protocol extensions or new
semantics, the protocol extension work must be done in the DHC WG.
The DHC WG has the following main objectives:
1. Work on informational documents providing operational or implementation
advice about DHCPv6, as well as documents specifying standard mechanisms for
operating, administering and managing DHCPv6 servers, clients, and relay
agents.
2. Assist other WGs and independent submissions in defining options
(that follow RFC 7227 guidelines) and to assure DHCP operational
considerations are properly documented.
3. Issue an updated version of the DHCPv6 base specification, and after
an appropriate interval following publication, advance to Internet standard.
Milestones:
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcp4o6-saddr-opt
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv4-forcerenew-extensions
Mar 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-lwm2m-bootstrap-options
Aug 2018 - WGLC draft-ietf-dhc-dhcpv6-yang
Mar 2019 - Advance 3315bis RFC to Internet Standard
Ballot announcement
Ballot Announcement
Technical Summary
Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract
and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract
or introduction.
Working Group Summary
Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting?
For example, was there controversy about particular points
or were there decisions where the consensus was
particularly rough?
Document Quality
Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a
significant number of vendors indicated their plan to
implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that
merit special mention as having done a thorough review,
e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a
conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If
there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review,
what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type
Review, on what date was the request posted?
Personnel
Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the
Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA
experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries
in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.'
RFC Editor Note
(Insert RFC Editor Note here or remove section)
IRTF Note
(Insert IRTF Note here or remove section)
IESG Note
(Insert IESG Note here or remove section)
IANA Note
(Insert IANA Note here or remove section)