Dale, thanks for your review. All, thanks for your responses. I entered a No
Objection ballot.
Alissa
> On Sep 30, 2020, at 11:23 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>
>>> In this case, timely is most about user perception. If the now dysfunctional
>>> address remains in use long enough for the user to
>> In this case, timely is most about user perception. If the now dysfunctional
>> address remains in use long enough for the user to become annoyed (or
>> arguably
>> even notice), then recovery is not timely. Since the definition of timely in
>> this case is actually subjective, I’m not sure
Hello, Dale,
On 3/9/20 22:11, Dale R. Worley wrote:
Fernando Gont writes:
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my responses in-line
You're welcome!
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this as questions
of *fact*, but rather saying that these points are
Owen DeLong writes:
> This depends. Certainly a host which still has active flows using the
> old address will not automatically terminate those flows. Further,
> longest lifetime is not even listed as a source address selection
> criteria in RFC6724. Even if it were added, it would likely be
>
Fernando Gont writes:
> Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my responses in-line
You're welcome!
To be clear, I'm not disagreeing with you about any of this as questions
of *fact*, but rather saying that these points are obscure to people who
aren't familiar with the
Hello, Dale,
Thanks so much for your feedback! Please find my responses in-line
On 30/8/20 22:14, Dale Worley via Datatracker wrote:
Reviewer: Dale Worley
Review result: Ready with Nits
I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all
> On Aug 30, 2020, at 6:14 PM, Dale Worley via Datatracker
> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Dale Worley
> Review result: Ready with Nits
>
> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
> Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG for the IETF
