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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Wed, 13 January 2021 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 482DB3A0C40 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.15 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, T_SPF_TEMPERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 l25A10hZBpsz for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:31:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFD1E3A0C51 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:31:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:88e2:40e:ba1b:ea7d] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:8164:88e2:40e:ba1b:ea7d]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7A33A28466C; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 10:31:03 +0000 (UTC)
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
To: S Moonesamy <sm+ietf@elandsys.com>, Fernando Gont <fernando@gont.com.ar>, ietf@ietf.org
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> <6.2.5.6.2.20210113002902.0afa59d8@elandnews.com>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <cafd33f6-2be1-c34f-dbc2-b21b77db0ee8@si6networks.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Jan 2021 07:17:18 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20210113002902.0afa59d8@elandnews.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/w7H8SnaJpqlWDhcNWqA6ARnoblo>
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 10:31:55 -0000

Hi, SM,

On 13/1/21 06:15, S Moonesamy wrote:
[....]
>>
>> 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.

Certainly not. What I meant is that if I failed to respond, I will.

In fact, if I failed to respond, I'd expect Eric's comments to remain 
part of his IESG review, and hence discussing his comments would be part 
of the process, as usual.



> 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.

    Alice: How long is forever?
    White Rabbit:  Sometimes, just one second.

          -- Lewis Carroll, Alice in Wonderland


For one reason or another, URLs are seldomly stable. Organizations 
change their CMS (breaking URLs), etc., etc.,

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492