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

Fernando Gont <> Wed, 27 January 2021 22:04 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED3F73A0C66; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:04:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, 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 mWc-EfJVJAUb; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:04:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A4EB33A0C68; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 14:04:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:69a9:e23f:a699:f848]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 12DFA2803F1; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 22:04:01 +0000 (UTC)
To: Ted Lemon <>
Cc:,,, Benjamin Kaduk <>, The IESG <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 2021 19:01:50 -0300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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 22:04:23 -0000

On 27/1/21 18:37, 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.

Would this be a more concise Abstract?

This document specifies improvements to Customer Edge Routers that help 
mitigate the problems that may arise when network configuration 
information becomes invalid, without any explicit signaling of that 
condition to the affected nodes. This document updates RFC7084.

> 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.

I agree on that. At the same time, many times I have been asked to add 
*more* to the Abstract. :-)

> 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… :)


Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492