Hi, Tomak and Kim. I had a quick look through -07 and it appeared to have fixed all my quibbles. I see the draft has now been approved - so hopefully it will progress to RFC RSN! Regards, Elwyn On Thu, 2013-07-18 at 19:34 +0200, Tomek Mrugalski wrote: > 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 is now closed, so I have put an unpublished -07 version here: 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 >