On 17.07.2013 16:41, Elwyn Davies wrote: > On s7, item 6: Just a thought so I'll consider it irrelevant. > > On the last para of 7, I clearly failed to notice the date on the draft > for DHCPv4 failover protocol! [The hazards of an infinite archive for > I-Ds!] So I understand why this probably isn't going to go all the way > to an inter-operable protocol for either v4 or v6. Perhaps it might be > worth adding in a few words to explain this (and improve an editorial > nit I missed): > OLD: > Despite the lack of standardization of DHCPv4 failover, the > coexistence of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 failover may be taken into > consideration. In particular, certain features that are common for > both IPv4 and IPv6, like DNS Update mechanism should be taken into > consideration. > NEW: > Although progress on a standardized inter-operable DHCPv4 failover > protocol has stalled, vendor-specific DHCPv4 failover protocols > have been deployed that meet these requirements to a large extent. > Accordingly it would be appropriate to take into account the likely > coexistence of DHCPv4 and DHCPv6 failover solutions. In particular, > certain features that are common to both IPv4 and IPv6 > implementations, such as any DNS Update mechanism, should be taken into > consideration to ensure compatible operation. Hi Elwyn,
Thanks a lot for your thorough review and comments. The submission tool is now closed, so I have put an unpublished -07 version here: https://github.com/tomaszmrugalski/ietf-dhcpv6-fo/ We will upload it to IETF once the submission tool reopens. I hope I didn't miss any comments. Please let me know if I did. Tomek _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
