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 00:36 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 871FD3A14F2 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:47 -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 1pgHXT1opSec for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.elandsys.com (mx.elandsys.com [162.213.2.210]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id EDF153A14E9 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:36:38 -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 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; d=elandsys.com; s=mail; t=1610498191; x=1610584591; i=@elandsys.com; bh=e1eES16p1bkeQbKLBgDo9IovqDBUvoGos/f5IXFjhcY=; h=Date:To:From:Subject:In-Reply-To:References; b=yZknDY7Iwnr7uTdB7I/Pnq4UOaItvjGyInvzjQ+2bDsNNV0dz+6vjf7xDRclCoyq4 ceimfUXBUpcegIKiD1usLs1yropJaeLOo9e852n5synXBXeTXCTWUo9TXNJpSMxIXP 6bvrdXZJ2ei8g4GKNkw1wrjdj8bGtTe/mfulBHa4=
Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20210112161545.0c2c6e10@elandnews.com>
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.2.5.6
Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2021 16:35:49 -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: <8673440a-9594-3c24-d583-df6e3f01761a@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>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/n7S1Q0sBoWNstV5NxMysvpoSYWg>
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 00:36:48 -0000

Hi Fernando,

[I moved the thread to ietf@ietf.org]

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?

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. 
https://www.ietf.org/chairs/document-writeups/document-writeup-working-group-documents/