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

From: Warren Kumari <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 11:53:59 -0400

Hi all,

draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05 was on today's telechat, and ran
into issues.

Alissa (based on the Gen ART review) asked why this was not a BCP, and
there was general agreement within the IESG that BCP seems like most
reasonable status.
There was also discussions on the:
"Take careful note: Unlike other IETF documents, the key words "MUST",
[...]  "OPTIONAL" in this document are not used as described in [RFC2119]."
and that this was very confusing.

I proposed that we change the status to BCP, and that the terms be
used in the normal manner.

I'd like to give the WG 2 weeks to object to this proposal, and, if
none received, start another IETF LC as BCP.

So, please let me know (by Nov 5th) if you strongly object to this
becoming a BCP, and the "normal" RFC2119/BCP14 meanings being used for
the recommendations **in this document**.

W

-- 
I don't think the execution is relevant when it was obviously a bad
idea in the first place.
This is like putting rabid weasels in your pants, and later expressing
regret at having chosen those particular rabid weasels and that pair
of pants.
   ---maf