Re: [Last-Call] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-06.txt> (Improving the Reaction of Customer Edge Routers to Renumbering Events) to Best Current Practice

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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



[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Mhonarc]     [Fedora Users]

  Powered by Linux