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

Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Thu, 22 October 2020 02:37 UTC

Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietf.org
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B8C783A09DF; Wed, 21 Oct 2020 19:37:51 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
From: Barry Leiba via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: "The IESG" <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, owen@delong.com
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 7.20.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Barry Leiba <barryleiba@computer.org>
Message-ID: <160333427125.13008.17525178699509411272@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 19:37:51 -0700
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fcUeQD_Bqef1u9-vLNzTHN-FcLk>
Subject: [v6ops] Barry Leiba's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
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 02:37:52 -0000

Barry Leiba has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


I support Rob's DISCUSS and agree that it would be better just to use the terms
in lower case, rather than making them appear as special key words but disclaim
the definition.  I'll note that RFC 7084 predates RFC 8174, and that the latter
clarifies that using the terms in lower case has exactly the meaning that the
disclaimer in Section 2 is trying (unsuccessfully) to make.

I also agree with Ben's comment that keeping the grammatical error "preferable"
is unnecessary.  But if we end up getting rid of the whole thing, that becomes
moot anyway.