Re: [v6ops] Disposition of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com> Wed, 16 December 2020 20:53 UTC

Return-Path: <fredbaker.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 265303A1051 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:22 -0800 (PST)
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 amc9sqSILSEh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-pl1-x633.google.com (mail-pl1-x633.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::633]) (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 B08603A1065 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-pl1-x633.google.com with SMTP id x18so7530234pln.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:17 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version:subject:in-reply-to :date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=X+U8x3It34IYNgENa4LgBgNKCpSdjL82VGx2SHTd5aY=; b=C4pJmqQHBAPcdye4v69yYJ18Lwi+Wzr+TYTgZz5VCt/lM2Zt7kI6eoJv4LzmvQS6RI k2OhgnUTkk2eVmnZBWpfkddfwSEidhZqJ0IDfZfJT3MdlCNiVXp5B+omvxU9tIEclR6a g+cHVh/YqKpUYgVIJ8satgiC30GBom+mDeP86BVvKp/0HSFaRnmsW2F6OFXD7beWd9Sq fFm1bxxdz2dHgRRbvhJbAokAiutzZZPKDCoq6O33ewfZ5HjINL+mJyqqG04KA2HSXHCw sqLPxir4aURYC4wgIFVNHXA7iwCyE5tmPMMBSf3we9DEUz0rAJOhEVl0202pOSRQHZ+7 qZHw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version :subject:in-reply-to:date:cc:message-id:references:to; bh=X+U8x3It34IYNgENa4LgBgNKCpSdjL82VGx2SHTd5aY=; b=hvlFt2kh2yLpjI+k8l/VrcLSXhQM1vpTYlcdlaHydUu3uID+0HmGgw4IJDT41faRit FMhbgCzIpImvhn1L/80TbCTP2rOT7wAg2ciZQ1ikRF74YuKRJXua27pyRk2nobAC5S7u L0uBTIACwwSf2CQnxmuBUpjVbh4heNCf8De9NICtODXs2r00qoy5QZv50EWMoBrh5bR1 nY8uZVWnwnC/rNioCrsAy2jMNls/eXWqyi1uQSqxhPG5GnSYVYBCkKI2uFlPlONQ9Cv3 LBc+gY8M/e4B1aWXD5cpr0UmS0Z9Ij70y4p6TS5y3ogcNydWEKw1IJtp7QazVAJMT9gG C7tA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530Pms1KcmBcu1p/9/nzMqymzyCXbeKzi5PgECftooYjKyAn68WD RioWDKD1lCgA9K7Vlrs4ZuY=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwan6CBuv1Zb/VWLMStwxOBgKVpxZ0UPxiudZkzQv/41NBipuGLuKaoLM6DStzeURY8ObGNqg==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:902:b943:b029:dc:6bd:5562 with SMTP id h3-20020a170902b943b02900dc06bd5562mr11426122pls.59.1608151997085; Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ?IPv6:2600:8802:5800:567::1007? ([2600:8802:5800:567::1007]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id g7sm2813479pjm.46.2020.12.16.12.53.16 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Google-Original-From: Fred Baker <FredBaker.IETF@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
In-Reply-To: <DM6PR05MB6348A6CD0B198C20CD8F7C56AEC50@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 12:53:15 -0800
Cc: IPv6 Operations <v6ops@ietf.org>
Message-Id: <8BFD9F23-624A-4FA0-B23D-C19FE076CC9B@gmail.com>
References: <DM6PR05MB6348A6CD0B198C20CD8F7C56AEC50@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com>
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: iPhone Mail (18C66)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/bh9BrYTc-DewSaxe1lo7pqKH1nc>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Disposition of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05
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: Wed, 16 Dec 2020 20:53:22 -0000

Fernando: please update as requested.

Ron: when he posts it, we can inform the working group of the changes and run a one week WGLC. Let’s either finish no later than 23 December, or start just after New Year’s. Asking folks to be “on” during holidays doesn’t work.

Sent using a machine that autocorrects in interesting ways...

> On Dec 16, 2020, at 10:19 AM, Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net> wrote:
> 
> Fernando,
> 
> How do you want to deal with Ole's objection ? Informational or BCP?
> 
> Also, Warren has already left for vacation. So, this draft probably won't progress until after the holiday.
> 
>                                   Ron
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Juniper Business Use Only
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Warren Kumari <warren@kumari.net>
>> Sent: Monday, December 7, 2020 2:38 PM
>> To: Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
>> Cc: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>om>; draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-
>> renum.all@ietf.org; Ron Bonica <rbonica@juniper.net>
>> Subject: Re: Disposition of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05
>> 
>> [External Email. Be cautious of content]
>> 
>> 
>>> On Sun, Dec 6, 2020 at 7:34 PM Fred Baker <fredbaker.ietf@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>> My understanding is that it has been submitted to the IESG and
>>> discussed, with four “DISCUSS” Ballots as a result. I assume that your
>>> October update resolved the issues, but I haven’t seen any of the four
>>> ADs agree that they did. So -
>>> 
>>> Warren, could you ask the IESG what the current state is? I believe that if the
>> ballots have been satisfactorily addressed, the ball is in the IESG’s court. They
>> should either pass it to the RFC Editor or tells us why they have not.
>> 
>> Actually, I've been trying to reach Fernando via chat methods
>> (hangouts) for a few days to chat about it.
>> 
>> IIRC, Ole objected fairly strongly to the "just keep the RFC2119 language and
>> make it BCP", and there wasn't a good show of support.
>> 
>> On Nov 2nd I said:
>> "Thank you Fred for asking for clarification -- I suspect that, seeing as
>> objections were raised (and based on the comments on the telechat) I'm going
>> to have to send it to the WG to:
>> 1: just call consensus that BCP is fine, and Ole is in the rough or
>> 2: agree that Informational is fine, and remove the MUST/SHOULD and
>> "similar to RFC2119" bit."
>> 
>> I had thought that I had actually returned the document to the WG, but
>> apparently not...
>> 
>> 
>> Fernando/authors -- I believe that the easiest is to just take option
>> 2 (which I think you said that y'all were OK with?)  -- I believe that this will
>> address the main stickiness (track / modified use of 2119 terms). Do you
>> believe that you have addressed all of the other comments? Should I start
>> threads with each of the DISCUSS holders to confirm 1: that option 2 will
>> address their concerns and 2: that they are OK with the other changes.
>> 
>> 
>> W
>> 
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>>> On Dec 5, 2020, at 8:18 PM, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Question: What's the status of this one? And, what are the next steps to
>> progress it?
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --
>> The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
>> complexities of his own making.
>>  -- E. W. Dijkstra