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

Fernando Gont <> Thu, 28 January 2021 07:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DCC53A1374; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:45:27 -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 hDo3y7mhBmq5; Wed, 27 Jan 2021 23:45:24 -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 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 (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 8FED8283A33; Thu, 28 Jan 2021 07:45:00 +0000 (UTC)
To: Benjamin Kaduk <>
Cc: The IESG <>,,,
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Fernando Gont <>
Message-ID: <>
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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 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.


>> (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:

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