Subject: [Last-Call] Intdir telechat review of draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

From: Sheng Jiang via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 19 Oct 2020 19:58:34 -0700

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Ready with Issues

Reviewer: Sheng Jiang
Review result: Ready with Issues

Hi,

I have reviewed this document as part of the Internet Area directorate's
ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These
comments were written with the intent of improving the IETF drafts.

Comments that are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews
during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these
comments just like any other last call comments.

draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05

Overall Summary:

This draft is a document that intents to be an Informational  RFC. This
document gives some recommendation to  improve the reaction and performance of
Customer Edge Routers in the IPv6 renumbering events.  It updates RFC7084.

Overall this is a well written document. There is a small Nit: in the
information reference, [I-D.gont-6man-slaac-renum] has been listed twice.

However, I have a more fundamental question. It may be easily addressed by AD
saying it was not an issue: as an informational document, it should only give
information or recommendation to the readers or implementors. However, this
document has a lot of "MUST", which is too strong and I think it should only
appear in Standard Stack or BCP documents. If so, this document may need
revise, even rework in the WG.

Regards,

Sheng

---

From: Fernando Gont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 16:43:10 -0300

Hello, Sheng,

Thanks so much for your comments! In-line....

On 19/10/20 23:58, Sheng Jiang via Datatracker wrote:
[...]
> information reference, [I-D.gont-6man-slaac-renum] has been listed twice.

Note: [I-D.gont-6man-slaac-renum] is referenced to Ack the folks that 
reviewed that document, on which the present one is based.

> revise, even rework in the WG.

Please see Section 2. Those terms are *not* being employed as in 
RFC2119, and are employed in the same was as in RFC7084, which this 
document means to update.

Thanks!

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