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 <sm+ietf@elandsys.com> Wed, 13 January 2021 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <sm@elandsys.com>
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 13A553A0965 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:19 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.697
X-Spam-Level:
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: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=fail (1024-bit key) reason="fail (message has been altered)" header.d=elandsys.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 Yso0olf3VczC for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1F33A0964 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:21:07 -0800 (PST)
Received: from DESKTOP-K6V9C2L.elandsys.com ([102.115.144.242]) (authenticated bits=0) by mx.elandsys.com (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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1610529661; x=1610616061; i=@elandsys.com; bh=HJdCzjCI1YAoaTzcNvBTfM0+HrGiG4rgzkPWDZNtJ90=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=Z4U5axH2a9fKzGKn7K1h0cLDYBZG+ja6nMy7T/mzHPRG8PvOoCAvHJ46gBWvCRUkp w5YHMAEHWqCGv1+CUQXSVXtDG+jucORotWFDFMhyOEntYNnve0yVLOxuguPMCmovfg 6FAuGuwX7OpfOEBHrflOHZgcDrvrb8Nuh/iTJGv8=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210113002902.0afa59d8@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 01:15:02 -0800
To: Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, ietf@ietf.org
From: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.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
In-Reply-To: <253fda4f-96b0-7338-e8f4-9042e2c39db2@gont.com.ar>
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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/iRgkb0z18CYLI8AJEDXfscSS9Ok>
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 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.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy