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 00:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 871FD3A14F2 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:47 -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 1pgHXT1opSec for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF153A14E9 for <>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:38 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPSA id 10D0aHWq027695 (version=TLSv1 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=simple/simple;; s=mail; t=1610498191; x=1610584591;; bh=e1eES16p1bkeQbKLBgDo9IovqDBUvoGos/f5IXFjhcY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=yZknDY7Iwnr7uTdB7I/Pnq4UOaItvjGyInvzjQ+2bDsNNV0dz+6vjf7xDRclCoyq4 ceimfUXBUpcegIKiD1usLs1yropJaeLOo9e852n5synXBXeTXCTWUo9TXNJpSMxIXP 6bvrdXZJ2ei8g4GKNkw1wrjdj8bGtTe/mfulBHa4=
Message-Id: <>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:35:49 -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="us-ascii"; format=flowed
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 00:36:48 -0000

Hi Fernando,

[I moved the thread to]

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 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?

S. Moonesamy