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

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2020 17:28:10 -0300

Hi, Ole,

On 22/10/20 16:24, [email-masked] wrote:
> I object. Both to s/Informational/BCP and to the change of 2119
> language.
> 
> This document is part of a series, 6204, 7084, which are more like
> procurement documents than protocol specifications.

I don't see how this document (or 6204 or 7084) can be seen as 
procurement documents.

Actually, they pretty much look like protocol specifications, and in 
many cases could even be protocol specs.

For example, I just opened one random document from the list you 
provided, and looked at some random text. Found this:
    WPD-7:  If the IPv6 CE router requests both an IA_NA and an IA_PD
            option in DHCPv6, it MUST accept an IA_PD option in DHCPv6
            Advertise/Reply messages, even if the message does not
            contain any addresses.

This kind of thing could easily be part of the DHCPv6 spec.

So I fail to see why you argue that these look like procurement documents.

That said, this present document is not part of any series (or well, 
only part of the *slaac-renum* series). So I'm not sure why a decision 
on this document should consider whatever discussion was had, at a 
different point in time, on other documents.

[...]
> If the IESG doesn't want this published in it's current form I would
> prefer it was sent back to the wg for a respin.

A respin for what?

Thanks,
-- 
Fernando Gont
SI6 Networks
e-mail: [email-masked]
PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492