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

[S Moonesamy <[e-mail]>]

At 04:00 PM 30-12-2020, The IESG wrote:
>This is the second IETF LC for this document -- it was originally 
>LCed as Informational. IESG Eval suggested that it was more 
>BCP-like, and so the document was returned to the V6OPS WG, and 
>re-WGLCed as BCP. It is now being IETF LCed as BCP, and will then go 
>through IESG Eval again.... and the process-elves rejoice...

What is the meaning of the "process-elves rejoice..." as stated by 
the Internet Engineering Steering Group on this Last Call announcement?

I took a look at draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-06 in case it gets 
implemented by service providers.  The draft updates parts of RFC 
7084.  The requirements in that RFC were for establishing 
industry-common baseline functionality instead of interoperability as 
specified in RFC 2119.  That is different from the Requirements 
language in Section 2 of this draft.  I found it confusing.

The amount of RFC 2119 key words in the draft is 
excessive.  Behavioral requirements are specified in Section 3, and 
re-specified in the later sections of the draft.  I gather that a "CE 
routers MUST NOT advertise prefixes ..." means that the operator or 
the user cannot turn off that option.

I doubt that CPEs for residential scenarios would be worse [1] if the 
intended status of the draft was Informational.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy

1. It may happen that the "support" desk tells the reader that 
configuration knobs are disabled for security purposes.