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

Benjamin Kaduk <> Wed, 27 January 2021 22:23 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A1243A0CAF; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:23:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.919
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lh_zOlrZuBT7; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:23:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 061FE3A0CAC; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:23:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ([]) (authenticated bits=56) (User authenticated as kaduk@ATHENA.MIT.EDU) by (8.14.7/8.12.4) with ESMTP id 10RMMpKC021599 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 27 Jan 2021 17:22:56 -0500
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:22:50 -0800
From: Benjamin Kaduk <>
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc: Fernando Gont <>, The IESG <>,,,
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <>
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:23:04 -0000

Hi Ted, Fernando,

On Wed, Jan 27, 2021 at 04:37:36PM -0500, Ted Lemon wrote:
> On Jan 27, 2021, at 4:21 PM, Fernando Gont <> wrote:
> > What's the specific "text that is not appropriate for an abstract”?
> The abstract should just say what topic the document covers and where it’s applicable. Anything more than that goes in the introduction. Otherwise you get these multi-paragraph abstracts that aren’t at all abstract, and don’t help the reader to decide whether or not to read the document.
> Of course, usually you read the document because someone told you to, or because some other document references it, so maybe this isn’t that important… :)

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.)