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

[Fernando Gont <[e-mail]>]

Hello, Bob,

On 13/7/20 14:59, Bob Hinden wrote:
> This concludes the adoption call for "Improving the Robustness of Stateless Address Autoconfiguration (SLAAC) to Flash Renumbering Events”
> 
> The chairs reading of results of the adoption call is that there is agreement that 6MAN w.g. should work on this problem, but there is not support for the solutions proposed in the document.
> 
> We found that Mikael Abrahamsson email captured this well:
> 
>    https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/01JrxBGiMmsKuB1bkks5NIgLxSQ
> 
>   "I agree that there are problems to be solved in this space (thus I support
>    adoption), but I think that the current version of the draft is way too
>    overengineered and "heavy handed". I think we can achieve all the benefit
>    without changing so much of current behavior.”
> 
> The authors are instructed to remove the contents from Section 4 (the section headers can stay but the contents should be replaced with “TBD”) and submit a new draft named <draft-ietf-6man-slaac-renum-00> with these changes.  We will approve that as a w.g. document.

Just double-checking: Are you suggesting that we remove Section 4.5 or 
that we remove the contents of the entire Section 4?

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.).

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [e-mail]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492