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 06:34 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 409333A12F1; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:34:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.92
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.92 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] 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 ow7Q3ZrP0gPQ; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:34:05 -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 31C333A12E9; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:34:04 -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 10S6XsNO029000 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Thu, 28 Jan 2021 01:34:01 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:33:54 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org
Message-ID: <20210128063354.GS21@kduck.mit.edu>
References: <160325603610.17357.6914550111489766157@ietfa.amsl.com> <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com> <C68DC427-85A4-4AE7-928A-C92AD2C4488A@fugue.com> <20210127222250.GN21@kduck.mit.edu> <b277f085-eb94-60be-0228-c89dd6a09800@si6networks.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <b277f085-eb94-60be-0228-c89dd6a09800@si6networks.com>
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/8CPLa0zj8BlPOXjxLkmpxeb5i6Y>
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 06:34:08 -0000

Hi Fernando,

Assuming you're interested in my opinion...

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 07:51:46PM -0300, Fernando Gont wrote:
> On 27/1/21 19:22, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> [...]
> > 
> > I agree with everything you say, though I think there may have been some
> > miscommunication earlier in the thread.
> > 
> > In particular, I was just trying to say that:
> > I looked at the diff between abstract and introduction, and there were some
> > noteworthy bits and some non-noteworthy bits.  The non-noteworthy bits are
> > the several extra paragrpahs in the introduction, since that's a large part
> > of what the difference between abstract and introduction is supposed to be.
> > 
> > Specifically, the "text that is not appropriate for an abstract" is
> > referring to text that is already (and correctly) in the introduction.  (At
> > least, that's what I thought when I read it the first time; I didn't look
> > at it right now to check.)
> 
> How about this for the Abstract:
> 
> This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge Routers that help 
> mitigate the problems that may arise when network configuration 
> information becomes invalid, without any explicit signaling of that 
> condition to the affected nodes. This document updates RFC7084.
> 
> .. at the end of the day, that's what the document is about.

That looks pretty solid; thanks for iterating to get to it.

> (Note: I wouldn't have added the "This document updates RFC7084", but 
> have been asked to. But won't argue about it either way :-) )

I think Brian covered this part, though I think it is just something I
assimilated as institutional knowledge and I can't point to a reference for
it.

-Ben