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

Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net> Sun, 17 January 2021 18:47 UTC

Return-Path: <warren@kumari.net>
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 178893A12F8 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:47:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com
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 wBFv7armDxtL for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:47:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lj1-x22f.google.com (mail-lj1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8CB2E3A12F7 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:47:16 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lj1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id n11so15991413lji.5 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:47:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=kumari-net.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g1R+UFro3O86m01l9pqgiVRBWG/bkmS1pHkOY6ARJcA=; b=ejCnR9N7pYvTRBJR7VIHrx4wUvjeCRURxisOLJOEmFiPot7JQR0VGNxFoDBfCirSIX QFzPJzisR+DXCttorUSXrOhJFhD00I4vMHJldQawRWqHzh+aV4tWRm23Bl8DVcSsu7/v SzN0vLLLlIz/QOu5m5XRlX8S75sqrtsBiHr0TG1qSoK5UiSpy8MJqQXakfbCO7pLxklH 5YGBVEfJDDRJyWDfPbGCfnIksDbCFBeXmFGdj6luJtvoiM0utdS89blrkIIxQbpRqozl aq8SKj+EgPaiSNrBYlg4q3n4a1HSNtsemw/KXXDZndmJV44aDBioBo8BXdZA26Zyibjt pDqQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=g1R+UFro3O86m01l9pqgiVRBWG/bkmS1pHkOY6ARJcA=; b=a3fKgX6/px1pBT6r3xhtFfq/JFXNxMEB+vyfzqzVU0pX+TU3lob5Kae61Rab9sRHoQ 1ALWPFsmq6/8JVVCTSLjHroRaW8S0cj/QqlXKTbCoXAmlb+fwfUTbuADLhdHMW2WuJpW 0Z2tVf1kJT03A9tdMZsLFBZ+sfrIYIJ//ij1v0ALASS7UnvtO+cLjZC6rQ9y+GjsgvNZ 6hSoON409hQPs7HcXNg1pB9CPaUImPt4KCvXJDmOnA7j1Nv4Sw2F/xbudtFR4STSz8q7 hZ3gIeaVXomc8PeN0udfwxeL+Vy3ZpO/djJGOwPRVaflT/GKnDnbbMNvuZRRAwQpC/a2 7dnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531GuxqKeI/Xmwd1SLT8XOp+MeIXCUval0YDIQEYnHL7YWErxYLv GT1dQm/oFdyQQH99qqfm3k/aeKbOUhEeN/rhT3fDWQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzafVeB2mLaiBay15DcE39DZfNJB2R05vyaJ57suzCPRwu5iNBOI7nWc85kFfExWZEcFjugwfq7isIHl5aSCjA=
X-Received: by 2002:a2e:7c12:: with SMTP id x18mr9109364ljc.324.1610909233824; Sun, 17 Jan 2021 10:47:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
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> <253fda4f-96b0-7338-e8f4-9042e2c39db2@gont.com.ar> <6.2.5.6.2.20210113002902.0afa59d8@elandnews.com> <cafd33f6-2be1-c34f-dbc2-b21b77db0ee8@si6networks.com>
In-Reply-To: <cafd33f6-2be1-c34f-dbc2-b21b77db0ee8@si6networks.com>
From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
Date: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 13:46:37 -0500
Message-ID: <CAHw9_iLCcqMXkkXX_Ehmjh0xpQx2pCYfoZqD-thh4i6Fwz1oWw@mail.gmail.com>
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: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, IETF Discuss <ietf@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/etvEmB1MBJ6QP7Ic5zxUSeRoi68>
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: Sun, 17 Jan 2021 18:47:19 -0000

On Wed, Jan 13, 2021 at 5:32 AM Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
>
> Hi, SM,
>
> On 13/1/21 06:15, S Moonesamy wrote:
> [....]
> >>
> >> 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).
> >
> > I have my share of mistakes in the IETF and outside the IETF.  However,
> > whether there was a mistake on your side or my side is not the main
> > point of interest.  I was interested in reading the response of the
> > working group on those points after going through the relevant RFCs and
> > the draft.  My reading of your reply is that a response to the comments
> > from Éric is unnecessary.
>
> Certainly not. What I meant is that if I failed to respond, I will.
>
> In fact, if I failed to respond, I'd expect Eric's comments to remain
> part of his IESG review, and hence discussing his comments would be part
> of the process, as usual.
>
>

I think that the majority of the major DISCUSS (Alissa, Eric, and Rob)
and general feedback/comments have been addressed by the change in
status/removal of the pseudo-2119 language. However, the document will
(of course) undergo another full IESG Eval, and so all of the ADs will
have another opportunity to review the document and
confirm/double-check that their comments and concerns have been fully
addressed...

In particular, Erik had a DISCUSSS unrelated to the Informational/BCP
question, and so I've asked him to work with the author to ensure that
his comments have been fully addressed -- it would be stupid to do
another IETF Eval which results in the same DISCUSS position...

I believe that this document is getting more review than most - it is
having 2 WGLCs, 2 IETF LCs, and 2 IESG Evals; if comments are not
addressed when I take to the the second eval, I expect my co-ADs to
point out (loudly!) that their comments are still open...

W

>
> > The following comment is unrelated to the draft.  RFC 7772 has two URIs
> > in Section 3.  The first URI requires a Google account to access the
> > content.  The second URI is redirected to a site about "
> >
> > white-glove managed cloud services".  The guidance for RFCs are for URIs
> > to be stable; that is not the case.
>
>     Alice: How long is forever?
>     White Rabbit:  Sometimes, just one second.
>
>           -- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland
>
>
> For one reason or another, URLs are seldomly stable. Organizations
> change their CMS (breaking URLs), etc., etc.,
>
> Thanks,
> --
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>
>
>
>


-- 
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra