Re: [v6ops] Call for adoption: draft-peng-v6ops-hbh

Hi Warren,

Thank you for your support!

I agree that some text in Section 8 needs to be revised especially those seem to be related to the solutions since this draft only focuses on requirements.

We could further work on the requirements listed in Section 7 altogether, which was the intention.

Thank you!

Best regards,
Shuping

From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Warren Kumari
Sent: Friday, September 10, 2021 5:15 AM
To: Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Call for adoption: draft-peng-v6ops-hbh

On Thu, Sep 9, 2021 at 1:11 PM Ron Bonica <rbonica=40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org<mailto:40juniper.net@dmarc.ietf.org>> wrote:
Folks,

This message initiates a call for adoption for draft-peng-v6ops-hbh (https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-peng-v6ops-hbh/).

<no hats>
I've read this document, and I think that it provides useful background and level-setting information. I don't think that there is a huge amount of brand new information (other than Sec 7, 8), but the background on how devices actually operate, summaries, references, background (Sec 1, 2, 4, 5, 6) make it worthwhile.
Even if it never becomes an RFC, I personally think it is worth adoption - it clearly needs work (Sec 7 may be overly prescriptive, and Sec 8 seems unclear/unfinished and possibly reaching into 6man space), but even just having a document which collects and summarizes existing information, and gives everyone to the same place to stand is useful.

W

Please post comments by September 24, 2021.

                                                                   Fred and Ron

Juniper Business Use Only
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org<mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

--
The computing scientist’s main challenge is not to get confused by the
complexities of his own making.
  -- E. W. Dijkstra