Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-06.txt> (Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering Events) to Best Current Practice

Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar> Wed, 13 January 2021 05:47 UTC

Return-Path: <fernando@gont.com.ar>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C6BA3A0B33 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:47:02 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.161
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.161 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id PKGzjI5H02pE for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:46:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BBF4D3A0B35 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 21:46:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:88e2:40e:ba1b:ea7d] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:88e2:40e:ba1b:ea7d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id AEB24283CFB; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 05:46:48 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-06.txt> (Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering Events) to Best Current Practice
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, ietf@ietf.org
References: <160937280919.30572.6826550493774973607@ietfa.amsl.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20201231003612.1016ba38@elandnews.com> <CAHw9_iLReRYcSdH68nMFO5h5nb-KoPo-ZnMwV21Jp1mNNUz72A@mail.gmail.com> <6.2.5.6.2.20210101101837.07fc7cf8@elandnews.com> <8673440a-9594-3c24-d583-df6e3f01761a@gont.com.ar> <6.2.5.6.2.20210112161545.0c2c6e10@elandnews.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>
Message-ID: <253fda4f-96b0-7338-e8f4-9042e2c39db2@gont.com.ar>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:46:30 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210112161545.0c2c6e10@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/CRQerrjaigQwoqNuhVju56lwmIM>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 05:47:02 -0000

On 12/1/21 21:35, S Moonesamy wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> [I moved the thread to ietf@ietf.org]
> 
> At 12:31 PM 01-01-2021, Fernando Gont wrote:
>> There was an *error* in how the metadata for the document was set. The 
>> track of the document had always been "Informational".
> 
> There is an assumption that the "verifications" [1] would catch such an 
> error.

I guess that at the end of the day, we are all mere mortals, and can 
always err/fail. Fortunately, when that happens, somebody else notices 
the problem, and we can fix it.



>> I thought we had responded to all, but since we authors are mere 
>> mortals, it could also be the case that we missed some. I will review 
>> all received comments (and, in particular, any by Eric) and respond if 
>> necessary.
>>
>> That said, the document is being IETF LC'ed (rather than published by 
>> the RFC-Ed), so we're just in time to address anything that we may 
>> have missed before.
> 
> Are the authors of the opinion that it is unnecessary to respond to the 
> comments which were received?

I'd have assumed that my comment above already answered this one, before 
you even asked.  (i.e., I noted "I thought we had responded to all...").

I normally respond to all comments, even if just to Ack. Again, we're 
all mere mortals. At times we can unintentionally err or fail. When/if 
we do, a short email is usually more than enough to trigger the fault 
recovery process (e.g., responding to an email that, for some reason, we 
failed to respond).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
e-mail: fernando@gont.com.ar || fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 7809 84F5 322E 45C7 F1C9 3945 96EE A9EF D076 FFF1