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 <[e-mail]>]

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