Re: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

[removing some distribution lists]

Sheng,

Thank you very much for your reviews of this I-D and the associated I-D.

As you may have seen, I used your review combined with my own one to ballot my position: and on this document is was a blocking DISCUSS based on your point (that I shared). You may have a look in the public IESG telechat minutes once published but this issue was also raised by other people and the document will need to become either informational w/o upper case words or BCP (but with another IETF Last Call).

As with most if not all other directorate reviews, your review assisted me a lot in my review task: always easier to have 4-eyes on a document than only two ;-)

Have a nice WE

-éric

-----Original Message-----
From: Int-dir <int-dir-bounces@ietf.org> on behalf of Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
Reply-To: Sheng Jiang <jiangsheng@huawei.com>
Date: Tuesday, 20 October 2020 at 04:59
To: "int-dir@ietf.org" <int-dir@ietf.org>
Cc: "last-call@ietf.org" <last-call@ietf.org>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org" <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org>
Subject: [Int-dir] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

    Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
    Review result: Ready with Issues

    Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
    Review result: Ready with Issues

    Hi,

    I have reviewed this document as part of the Internet Area directorate's
    ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
    comments were written with the intent of improving the IETF drafts.

    Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
    during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
    comments just like any other last call comments.

    draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

    Overall Summary:

    This draft is a document that intents to be an Informational  RFC. This
    document gives some recommendation to  improve the reaction and performance of
    Customer Edge Routers in the IPv6 renumbering events.  It updates RFC7084.

    Overall this is a well written document. There is a small Nit: in the
    information reference, [I-D.gont-6man-slaac-renum] has been listed twice.

    However, I have a more fundamental question. It may be easily addressed by AD
    saying it was not an issue: as an informational document, it should only give
    information or recommendation to the readers or implementors. However, this
    document has a lot of "MUST", which is too strong and I think it should only
    appear in Standard Stack or BCP documents. If so, this document may need
    revise, even rework in the WG.

    Regards,

    Sheng

    _______________________________________________
    Int-dir mailing list
    Int-dir@ietf.org
    https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-dir