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

S Moonesamy <> Wed, 13 January 2021 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13A553A0965 for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.697 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_INVALID=0.1, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)"
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Yso0olf3VczC for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1F33A0964 for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 10D9Kl35015901 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:20:59 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1610529661; x=1610616061;; bh=HJdCzjCI1YAoaTzcNvBTfM0+HrGiG4rgzkPWDZNtJ90=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Z4U5axH2a9fKzGKn7K1h0cLDYBZG+ja6nMy7T/mzHPRG8PvOoCAvHJ46gBWvCRUkp w5YHMAEHWqCGv1+CUQXSVXtDG+jucORotWFDFMhyOEntYNnve0yVLOxuguPMCmovfg 6FAuGuwX7OpfOEBHrflOHZgcDrvrb8Nuh/iTJGv8=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:15:02 -0800
To: Fernando Gont <>,
From: S Moonesamy <>
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
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 09:21:19 -0000

Hi Fernando,
At 09:46 PM 12-01-2021, Fernando Gont wrote:
>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).

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.  I suggest going for "Informational" 
so as to keep the effort to a minimum.

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.

S. Moonesamy