Re: [v6ops] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03

Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in> Thu, 22 October 2020 00:59 UTC

Return-Path: <alissa@cooperw.in>
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 726723A0EC0; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:59:46 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=cooperw.in header.b=s18pp0Jo; dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=messagingengine.com header.b=mv7En4Ff
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 mjZnliy-cM_I; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com (wout3-smtp.messagingengine.com [64.147.123.19]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 218683A0B73; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 17:59:45 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from compute3.internal (compute3.nyi.internal [10.202.2.43]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id DA1FE132E; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:59:42 -0400 (EDT)
Received: from mailfrontend1 ([10.202.2.162]) by compute3.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:59:43 -0400
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=cooperw.in; h= content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; s=fm1; bh=w pxRLhW6ftUi1BDSKu54+HXIITTqdRCSlyAcpdZRPvk=; b=s18pp0JowBKEHKhdr bHJFQtcUTtQNeZmB9X06h1QeCwYPunzgzqQlIw3SfC8jw02F8+g1IgMzexSNohnV mlDxXC5R1azWRpj3VWL85CYOXM/WBhx5CTBqSGUhLn7mGUJGE7ifYoOVe5iGdAsg VzE/96pCENRIEdpsp5Ju4v8ziWP94WseHYGPZk1ObjR8zKMIU1yEZrf4i2KkAZdr dfMQKcFfqVnSXzA8ffhWORO7oSiiP++7kHasCcf8lAmkTbIjAEv2vYyMJ2qwXMGK FpSHOIfVCCrbTh9F4dOmhm00w+KJee3tRwovQI6Oq2Fd9j/mfsAUZhlAB8n+K1/H k+QnA==
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references :subject:to:x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender :x-sasl-enc; s=fm1; bh=wpxRLhW6ftUi1BDSKu54+HXIITTqdRCSlyAcpdZRP vk=; b=mv7En4FfiI6kgsDhISGBJigoJqzOIr1CPaews2+BTUGpEU5OuNcNfUhAi 3dhSZn19cxwReqkdjISAFbZadnCSaYwcE/5jN8yqod0zYMt5CtRN5alH9E4kwTh7 r+FOU8VdpZrvcpPjOin2xAH3fZImh0q3aQMAR5lRXV3Lg+OOUbEpOAOTUpFHu9pN 3VZFm6sYGvqxFc/Ah8R5HaDc4Dza/iFOwazOw04U/FpCSgawEnxZ70S8nJ2tpfjm 2uffwlw+z/BBIEXPl7PPGcskDJqvuynsk7tKhoT46BvZD8e81UYL+WiIO+ydBT9W Ht8fiIrxtn2KTSouPJDHw/zkCp8TQ==
X-ME-Sender: <xms:ftmQX0VEPzPAPVxQZCEFKb2oKz43nDdTJXaUVo-TQTMND4PhpsnyqA> <xme:ftmQX4kr2Lbx346jfJP23YE43KRSu9kLAn3cFeWr6zZQHX084J8aGvOnuMY9SBW5e ymsn-CDeHAHl4ojow>
X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedujedrjeeigdefkecutefuodetggdotefrodftvf curfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfghnecu uegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmdenuc fjughrpegtggfuhfgjfffgkfhfvffosehtqhhmtdhhtdejnecuhfhrohhmpeetlhhishhs rgcuvehoohhpvghruceorghlihhsshgrsegtohhophgvrhifrdhinheqnecuggftrfgrth htvghrnhepgfeutdektefhkeelheehteehvdekkeettddvvdejgffhieekffeggeevfeeu gedtnecuffhomhgrihhnpehivghtfhdrohhrghenucfkphepudejfedrfeekrdduudejrd eiheenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiiigvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpegr lhhishhsrgestghoohhpvghrfidrihhn
X-ME-Proxy: <xmx:ftmQX4b30_hEze2TH6mwXp8h_XpzC4EMmaJUMpbV-7V8fY6tEb3llw> <xmx:ftmQXzU0Dgt_vOIUBszXRBC6La2htPO7yEQVtDHiJamO-UHqRGpytw> <xmx:ftmQX-mcE8tsZ08sv1ykFaxb4Uq3_hGFRMAIlZbSkwh7hBFqGK6-gg> <xmx:ftmQXwgxHBfzI-gJiFcavTrJWaz0PBryolNU1OmweHPaDA1lFtX6_g>
Received: from rtp-alcoop-nitro2.cisco.com (unknown [173.38.117.65]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA id AD64D3280064; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:59:41 -0400 (EDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 13.4 \(3608.120.23.2.4\))
From: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>
In-Reply-To: <922CA45E-598A-464E-B5FE-00535E00F6A6@delong.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 20:59:40 -0400
Cc: Last Call <last-call@ietf.org>, IETF Gen-ART <gen-art@ietf.org>, draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum.all@ietf.org, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6735628F-92B4-4AD1-BD62-A66837C8EAF8@cooperw.in>
References: <87a6y6clid.fsf@hobgoblin.ariadne.com> <922CA45E-598A-464E-B5FE-00535E00F6A6@delong.com>
To: "Dale R. Worley" <worley@ariadne.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3608.120.23.2.4)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/BRzlGwYdqTX7aKo6GDBLQwuoyKw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] [Gen-art] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-v6ops-slaac-renum-03
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, 22 Oct 2020 00:59:47 -0000

Dale, thanks for your review. All, thanks for your responses. I entered a No Objection ballot.

Alissa


> On Sep 30, 2020, at 11:23 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:
> 
>>> In this case, timely is most about user perception. If the now dysfunctional
>>> address remains in use long enough for the user to become annoyed (or arguably
>>> even notice), then recovery is not timely. Since the definition of timely in
>>> this case is actually subjective, I’m not sure that such clarification is
>>> practical or useful.
>> 
>> I agree.  But if timliness has no really solid definition, why does the
>> text firmly assert that certain particular values, without qualificaton,
>> are not timely?
> 
> One can be quite certain that a user will not wait for 3 days for a web page to load without being certain whether the user will wait 30 seconds, 1 minute, 3 minutes, or even 1 hour.
> 
> It’s very easy to call 3 days untimely in such a case. It is very hard to draw a clear line among the lower values.
> 
> Owen
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Gen-art mailing list
> Gen-art@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art