IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with DISCUSS)

Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com> Thu, 22 October 2020 14:06 UTC

Return-Path: <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
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 14ECD3A110F; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:24 -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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=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=gmail.com
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 SJXvk-gI-MQd; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:21 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x22f.google.com (mail-oi1-x22f.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 900383A0E66; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x22f.google.com with SMTP id k27so1806495oij.11; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:18 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A7EBN+IezsluJnX8u0026btj+V8GRyLR/gD6BRu2kls=; b=XvRMDUZcoDrxSn/+WZDyawOOXTVfdV7/YmPxTywVlFq3Y9bWpecPeBrMDrqWAgBHLc D/6S98WioyVZdm3r4xSZGeom91IeQaFlOrmXBXOIiHzo7zmKX5XASMquePnw6/ux2vKE 5f5RDL0otoHgUAfRtOel8tj/PChzICvPwC/yWTDQPGLF+rRdLpLRIgQp9ghNVp5ACby3 K9hJokzbNBBrxbCEB8PCUuLuDD7YyGNh27LEULPnMiNxD/Rcgys2SBCPYr4dXmzl/SsT qRagd/bCAOMnyb3+5z6Lxz8XEx2buksnl/QTGYzo0WlwiDSKsVnkor1v7noGnqF3nq+7 SuDw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-transfer-encoding; bh=A7EBN+IezsluJnX8u0026btj+V8GRyLR/gD6BRu2kls=; b=OBo5TCeOwVP2zbg8jSzC0GIaaGJJzVDF+dp9cvk2x8Fm5Kplr4q/tM8kggXD39Dxkq wGTiXc/ik6KaEypSrwT0cLybbaKZkAWzLks2b+YqTnmngRyBQu5wKKZVjwEWPrJR5LiE 19CRvv7RIgFQKhD1aj9fWRwLNg34EeyGLAu3w3QKfUacBTMbY1QQ2naD4Vihea+m5h2W 8QiWQiPBI0sXEumg4aw0Kl+L6RWJn4cdeHbs9XLSzhA3xRDJxNHAB5JOWRHbKfO5ZMUg Xt5dRv1EvUf2DaMNx94AtHil+N52GVCNuv3eVXR06wHd1p25zvvZ1xAAbnMeO+Kp6s2m 6jiQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531j7YDeDI6J9et9rlyTMkRYj+cL+myXI0c110qvSqwfWaGkdSbN dyYd80z62da3H+8rnPypaHCcmtqLnmok8r95xFuRR02b
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzlrhAWdkhT3YUQBJeqFc02Thx0jiKc/qxl3hltztYvwtTJ5m8U8Ba6J2FMi2UMkNNQCWoWpYZ6jyA1Ze5UN2g=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6808:9b8:: with SMTP id e24mr1700972oig.97.1603375577753; Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <160337261986.9706.15256831018374618832@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr3CiVMHbab+7CK4Jiz3oN5k67CHdJtfEOGPE6QWVWJrZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr3CiVMHbab+7CK4Jiz3oN5k67CHdJtfEOGPE6QWVWJrZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Erik Kline <ek.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 07:06:07 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMGpriUx_hzNB1ssz6xZWFiu-UvqLfs6wb_R=-X0PYxsoK1o4Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: Alissa Cooper <alissa@cooperw.in>, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org, "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, V6Ops Chairs <v6ops-chairs@ietf.org>, The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, v6ops-ads@ietf.org
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/M-W2oVo9UR932tYEMIxT2DTcp-s>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Alissa Cooper's Discuss on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with DISCUSS)
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 14:06:29 -0000

On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 6:46 AM Lorenzo Colitti
<lorenzo=40google.com@dmarc.ietf.org> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Oct 22, 2020 at 10:17 PM Alissa Cooper via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> wrote:
>>
>> Alissa Cooper has entered the following ballot position for
>> draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: Discuss
>> [...]
>> DISCUSS:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Let's resolve the document status issue -- it was last-called as Proposed
>> Standard, it's listed as Informational, but it seems like it should be a BCP.
>>
>> I support Rob's DISCUSS and I believe the RFC 8174 boilerplate should be used.
>
>
> I don't think this should be classified as BCP without sending it to the WG for another look. WG consensus was reached on the assumption that the intended status was informational. I suspect many WG participants would have looked at the text with different eyes, and held it to a different/higher standard, if the intended status had been BCP. I know for sure that I would have.

This (running by the wg again) seems entirely reasonable to me.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email