Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)

Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu> Thu, 28 January 2021 06:38 UTC

Return-Path: <kaduk@mit.edu>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 03ABC3A135B; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:38:34 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.919 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 IcZI0kfhy7kc; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:38:32 -0800 (PST)
Received: from outgoing.mit.edu (outgoing-auth-1.mit.edu [18.9.28.11]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8FBF83A1326; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:38:31 -0800 (PST)
Received: from kduck.mit.edu ([24.16.140.251]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by outgoing.mit.edu (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 10S6cKbl032227 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:38:24 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:38:19 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Message-ID: <20210128063819.GT21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160325603610.17357.6914550111489766157@ietfa.amsl.com> <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6-62Z7HjS91JE8jf8x6ayYOdndQ>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 06:38:40 -0000

Hi Fernando,

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 06:21:30PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> Hi, Ben,
> 
> Just me going through IESG reviews to find if there's anything I had 
> missed. Please see in-line....
> 
> On 21/10/20 01:53, Benjamin Kaduk via Datatracker wrote:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > COMMENT:
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > 
> > I am not sure that we should avoid having the conversation about
> > intended status; consider, for example, "CE Routers SHOULD override the
> > default [...] values from [RFC4861]" (RFC 4861 is a Draft Standard).  (The
> > question was raised in the genart review thread by virtue of skew between
> > the datatracker state and the document header, but it looks like the WG chair
> > changed the status in the datatracker and there was no further discussion of
> > the topic on the list.)
> > 
> > The diff between Abstract and Introduction is interesting: there is a
> > parenthetical "(such as when a Customer Edge Router crashes and reboots
> > without knowledge of the previously-employed configuration information)"
> > only in the abstract that might also be useful in the introduction, and
> > the abstract uses 'hosts' where the introduction uses 'nodes'.  (There
> > are a couple other incidental wording differences that the authors might
> > wish to consider normalizing on one wording for, as well as the expected
> > additional text in the introduction that is not appropriate for an
> > abstract.)
> 
> What's the specific "text that is not appropriate for an abstract"?

(As covered downthread, "the stuff that's in the introduction and not
present in the abstract", i.e., is present in the diff but is not
noteworthy.)

[...]
> > Section 8.2
> > 
> > It would feel more natural, at least to me, if RFC 7084 was listed as a
> > normative reference.  (In the sense that we are Updating it to make
> > incremental additions, but you need the whole combined assembly of both
> > documents in order to have a functional setup.)
> 
> I would assume so. But it would be a downref. Is that possible?

Most things are possible ... but with 7084 not listed at
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/downref/ it might mean another IETF LC.
Your responsible AD should probably be the one to make the call, and the
"don't change it" option has a fair bit of inertia going for it.

-Ben