Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03

Owen DeLong <> Thu, 01 October 2020 03:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAA1E3A0985; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:41 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id J7WI4NBAwFtF; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8E0BC3A0983; Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2001:470:496b:0:f46d:6de9:9ff9:6520] ([IPv6:2001:470:496b:0:f46d:6de9:9ff9:6520]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id 0913NWBj4061945 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:34 -0700
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.11.0 0913NWBj4061945
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=mail; t=1601522614; bh=RO4RzBxCYSYCvW6amHiIW0KAfAaclXsIlSS5Zn0jSoo=; h=Subject:From:In-Reply-To:Date:Cc:References:To:From; b=DvELUtUWMKjqBTmZnH06eLqK1YRADQIYxpd2Br0DuOwZd+mKud+4x7MolIRi8CxjG xCbD76J4K3D0HlXde6PWdW/Vs0OCc+mE0aW9inlg6VMsXsOozypctTZUnwTZ1nCd8+ UtRCCN01hC6fGnrAgT6k8KTIahBxBIdAEaWdLH/I=
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.\))
From: Owen DeLong <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:31 -0700
Cc:,, v6ops list <>,
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.6.2 ( [IPv6:2620:0:930:0:0:0:200:2]); Wed, 30 Sep 2020 20:23:34 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "GEN-ART: General Area Review Team" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 01 Oct 2020 03:23:42 -0000

>> In this case, timely is most about user perception. If the now dysfunctional
>> address remains in use long enough for the user to become annoyed (or arguably
>> even notice), then recovery is not timely. Since the definition of timely in
>> this case is actually subjective, I’m not sure that such clarification is
>> practical or useful.
> I agree.  But if timliness has no really solid definition, why does the
> text firmly assert that certain particular values, without qualificaton,
> are not timely?

One can be quite certain that a user will not wait for 3 days for a web page to load without being certain whether the user will wait 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, or even 1 hour.

It’s very easy to call 3 days untimely in such a case. It is very hard to draw a clear line among the lower values.