IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Conclusion of Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 13 July 2020 18:59 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D6AF23A174D for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:56 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.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 edHtOWTNgImJ for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk1-x72c.google.com (mail-qk1-x72c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::72c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4EE493A175C for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk1-x72c.google.com with SMTP id b185so13327992qkg.1 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=fugue-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=CHeGZOLmgbdI6d8dJGPMhvUMNYOMxGywQXaCxnhkVNw=; b=T6TlRQoLIvdDy1DUMX77UGYzwwGQknogpCpUkS5HOE/+KR6uEB37ElX5wwLEK/HeFL //npCb/4dkUVSq2ljQ4/uM4vQAQTemYWrzuY5DNC87cDobrMZ1CI9NHkaAdXg6jkbX3K tMYYI7W5XXjd92Sp2fjAaVKlmLbdex/jvBebhggFUU3m5vw/y0e0P34zcRnt7gvd2HlD CRIDgdjsApjc7gFEnlwn93kqfY2ZhyVTV6darun/0ut6a/QNQ77EjSFLtoYbBfLAsJy1 ot66W4QLlEYGZz2vWjECEU7m1BI3G4ljtzC1phjDhORDUm9VEyB5nTt+CsjQmp2C1lLX crDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=CHeGZOLmgbdI6d8dJGPMhvUMNYOMxGywQXaCxnhkVNw=; b=Lzx2elL7kqjvfItPSyqEkLkNFmN5/0ngK3ySjIQN73yNFd8yskusBiCfVsbEaFLAGG XJRYfZzHCeE8lsRhJ9YmXTAI+dTgVJy4c0LBv70frDgsMO74zCTxXONDGF48AK8bv9fF ZyjtNmyBk6p9SBtXs8ukl/v+T3qQwFpJ9KBcqgRJNrFwVgu/2KMtaJzm75vvfx5JHZ38 8lMw8CRUiiVbPJ5J/XIEJT5c+PE8hnIZsh4SYYmxKyQaRmYyODqK2s08HGVsx0+YG3Fp d764p1zUY0lVHhpTtvwE6nOkGjP/gpkKV3Xsc/n6KP/aYdzsqAV5pxTFCc9XDp4+SzEq CoRw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531aDdbOmXO2kVOYxQtV2chY42phAAZE2HN4MlEY4OrqvPT6EsNj K0z4jlzYu5M0jiAErNCkIXJ6sA==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJy4x+1cEpb+bcFG7cz3n61sA9/LYoaKYQljNp7LcdW7J+YLBSdOnr4T+0KLyq+wL6J2gieUKg==
X-Received: by 2002:a05:620a:205e:: with SMTP id d30mr1123701qka.450.1594666794173; Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ?IPv6:2601:18b:300:36ee:e01e:71d5:d425:e4d9? ([2601:18b:300:36ee:e01e:71d5:d425:e4d9]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 15sm20287320qkm.93.2020.07.13.11.59.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 13 Jul 2020 11:59:53 -0700 (PDT)
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-Id: <B329C64F-B081-4A8A-A023-21BB8210A468@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_D8E691D0-7637-4BC3-8540-5D880C7B79FF"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.1\))
Subject: Re: Conclusion of Adoption Call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events"
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 14:59:51 -0400
In-Reply-To: <AA0F96B5-92AA-4CD1-97CF-05791DD8187D@gmail.com>
Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, IPv6 List <ipv6@ietf.org>
To: Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com>
References: <CC295D49-5981-41C3-B4DB-E064D66616CE@gmail.com> <4F9636F8-364A-4272-8D01-BFAA91D4A86C@gmail.com> <606f0b2f-6351-438e-5376-a35f1e12cb69@si6networks.com> <AA0F96B5-92AA-4CD1-97CF-05791DD8187D@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.1)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/XYeNvGWAk399EjXIcjRPe3Ll6Cc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2020 18:59:57 -0000

On Jul 13, 2020, at 2:46 PM, Bob Hinden <bob.hinden@gmail.com> wrote:
>> There have been objections against Section 4.5, but I haven't seen any to the proposals in Section 4. In fact, even explicit support for some of such sections have been voice (Lorenzo for Section 4.2, Jen for Section 4.1.1, etc.).
> 
> We would like to see each discussed separately.  Some should be easy to add back in, others, like 4.5 will be harder.

This is a confusing statement. Who is the “we” here?

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email