At 04:00 PM 30-12-2020, The IESG wrote:
This is the second IETF LC for this document -- it was originally
LCed as Informational. IESG Eval suggested that it was more
BCP-like, and so the document was returned to the V6OPS WG, and
re-WGLCed as BCP. It is now being IETF LCed as BCP, and will then go
through IESG Eval again.... and the process-elves rejoice...
What is the meaning of the "process-elves rejoice..." as stated by
the Internet Engineering Steering Group on this Last Call announcement?
I took a look at draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-06 in case it gets
implemented by service providers. The draft updates parts of RFC
7084. The requirements in that RFC were for establishing
industry-common baseline functionality instead of interoperability as
specified in RFC 2119. That is different from the Requirements
language in Section 2 of this draft. I found it confusing.
The amount of RFC 2119 key words in the draft is
excessive. Behavioral requirements are specified in Section 3, and
re-specified in the later sections of the draft. I gather that a "CE
routers MUST NOT advertise prefixes ..." means that the operator or
the user cannot turn off that option.
I doubt that CPEs for residential scenarios would be worse [1] if the
intended status of the draft was Informational.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
1. It may happen that the "support" desk tells the reader that
configuration knobs are disabled for security purposes.
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
