Subject: [v6ops] Murray Kucherawy's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: (with COMMENT)

From: Murray Kucherawy via Datatracker <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 21 Oct 2020 23:56:03 -0700

Murray Kucherawy has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum-05: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-cpe-slaac-renum/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

I support Rob's DISCUSS, for the reasons Barry gave.  In addition, I believe
IETF consensus is to use BCP 14 in its entirety, not just the first half of it.

Also, this sentence gave me pause:

"This document uses these keywords not strictly for the purpose of
interoperability, but rather for the purpose of establishing industry-common
baseline functionality."

Maybe this should be an applicability statement, and thus Standards Track?