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

Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> Thu, 28 January 2021 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <fgont@si6networks.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 8DCC53A1374; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:45:27 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
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 mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id hDo3y7mhBmq5; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:45:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fgont.go6lab.si (fgont.go6lab.si [91.239.96.14]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AEAE43A1373; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2] (unknown [IPv6:2800:810:464:2b9:18e2:60b8:efab:c3f2]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by fgont.go6lab.si (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FED8283A33; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <kaduk@mit.edu>
Cc: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>, v6ops-chairs@ietf.org, v6ops@ietf.org, draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum@ietf.org
References: <160325603610.17357.6914550111489766157@ietfa.amsl.com> <cf025acf-5192-d9a3-a727-8716d9d7b232@si6networks.com> <C68DC427-85A4-4AE7-928A-C92AD2C4488A@fugue.com> <20210127222250.GN21@kduck.mit.edu> <b277f085-eb94-60be-0228-c89dd6a09800@si6networks.com> <20210128063354.GS21@kduck.mit.edu>
From: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
Message-ID: <9943afa1-043f-b734-3532-e1a7dec9b0b1@si6networks.com>
Date: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 04:44:49 -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: <20210128063354.GS21@kduck.mit.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/wXTnvsi2LNbew9bJFKL4r-PmfT4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Benjamin Kaduk's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)
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: Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:45:28 -0000

On 28/1/21 03:33, Benjamin Kaduk wrote:
> Hi Fernando,
> 
> Assuming you're interested in my opinion...

I am, indeed :-)  Your reviews do make a difference in helping improve 
the quality of documents! (not just this one!)


[....]
>>> Specifically, the "text that is not appropriate for an abstract" is
>>> referring to text that is already (and correctly) in the introduction.  (At
>>> least, that's what I thought when I read it the first time; I didn't look
>>> at it right now to check.)
>>
>> How about this for the 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.
>>
>> .. at the end of the day, that's what the document is about.
> 
> That looks pretty solid; thanks for iterating to get to it.

Done!



>> (Note: I wouldn't have added the "This document updates RFC7084", but
>> have been asked to. But won't argue about it either way :-) )
> 
> I think Brian covered this part, though I think it is just something I
> assimilated as institutional knowledge and I can't point to a reference for
> it.

I'm not sure if this would serve as the reference that you wanted, but I 
just found this one: 
https://www.ietf.org/chairs/document-writeups/document-writeup-working-group-documents/

Item 16) seems to ask for it, or explain why that's not the case. :-)

So even if just for that, I'd add it, and save some electrons :-)

-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492