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

[Benjamin Kaduk <[e-mail]>]

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