[IPv6]Re: WG Last Call: draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06 (Ends 2026-04-23)

[Ted Lemon <[e-mail]>]

Does it? I'm not saying it definitely doesn't but I'm not seeing the need. It's just an identifier. If you aren't implementing or using a snac router, do you actually care what the acronym stands for?

On Sat, Apr 25, 2026, at 1:48 PM, tom petch wrote:
> From: Bob Hinden <[e-mail]>
> Sent: 24 April 2026 04:34
> 
> Any additional comments?
> 
> 
> <tp>
> 
> Does 'SNAC' need expanding in either the Title or Abstract or both?  I suspect that it does at this point in time.
> 
> Tom Petch
> 
> Bob
> 
> 
> 
> > On Apr 20, 2026, at 10:09 AM, Bob Hinden <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >
> > Reminder that this w.g. last call is still active.
> >
> > While the chairs think there is support for this advancing since this document had previously been advanced, we would like to hear from more people in the working group on this last call.
> >
> > Thanks
> > Bob & Jen
> >
> >
> >
> >> On Apr 9, 2026, at 8:22 AM, Bob Hinden via Datatracker <[e-mail]> wrote:
> >>
> >> This message starts a 6MAN WG Last Call for:
> >> draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06
> >>
> >> This w.g. last call is being done to resolve the normative reference issue discussed at the 6MAN session
> >> at IETF125 and on the mailing list.
> >>
> >> This Working Group Last Call ends on 2026-04-23
> >>
> >> Abstract:
> >>  This document defines a new flag, the SNAC Router flag, in the Router
> >>  Advertisement message that can be used to distinguish configuration
> >>  information sent by SNAC routers from information sent by transit
> >>  routers.
> >>
> >> File can be retrieved from:
> >>
> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06.html
> >>
> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06
> >>
> >> Please review and indicate your support or objection to proceed with the
> >> publication of this document by replying to this email keeping [e-mail]
> >> in copy. Objections should be explained and suggestions to resolve them are
> >> highly appreciated.
> >>
> >> Authors, and WG participants in general, are reminded of the Intellectual
> >> Property Rights (IPR) disclosure obligations described in BCP 79 [1].
> >> Appropriate IPR disclosures required for full conformance with the provisions
> >> of BCP 78 [1] and BCP 79 [2] must be filed, if you are aware of any.
> >> Sanctions available for application to violators of IETF IPR Policy can be
> >> found at [3].
> >>
> >> Thank you.
> >>
> >> [1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp78/
> >> [2] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/bcp79/
> >> [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/rfc6701/
> >>
> >> The IETF datatracker status page for this Internet-Draft is:
> >> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag/
> >>
> >> There is also an HTML version available at:
> >> https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06.html
> >>
> >> A diff from the previous version is available at:
> >> https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-06
> >
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[e-mail]/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> [e-mail]
> List Info: https://mailman3.ietf.org/mailman3/lists/[e-mail]/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>