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 <> Wed, 13 January 2021 10:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 482DB3A0C40 for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:31:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.15
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id l25A10hZBpsz for <>; Wed, 13 Jan 2021 02:31:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DFD1E3A0C51 for <>; 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 (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 <>, Fernando Gont <>,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 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.,

Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492