[Ballot comment]
I'm entering Abstain for this document, because I think it has many
flaws, some important and some less important, but still may be
useful.

Here are some of the problems I see in the document.

DNS, mDNS and SLP are mentioned in the context of name resolution. Is
SLP deployed widely enough to warrant mention? What about LLMNR and
uPNP?

I don't understand why ULAs are identified as somehow affecting the
use or impact of static addresses.

DHCPv6 PD should be mentioned in the context of prefix assignment.

Is it really still common practice that " printers in particular are
manually assigned a fixed address (typically an [RFC1918] address) and
that users are told to manually configure printer access using that
fixed address"?

In section 2.3, addresses assigned through DHCPv6 are considered
problematic because the address might expire, but later DHCPv6 is
suggested as a way of assigning addresses to solve renumbering of
static addresses.

I don't understand the first sentence of 2.4. Isn't the requirement
for a static address based on the need to maintain transport sessions
over VM movement (which isn't really how I understand the first
sentence).

In section 2.5, if asset management is based on MAC addresses, why are
static IP addresses an issue?

I don't understand the connection between "If [...] a particular host
is found to be generating some form of unwanted traffic, it is urgent
to be able to track back from its IP address to its physical location"
and renumbering of static addressing.

How does "using addresses under an enterprise's ULA prefix for
software licensing" solve the renumbering problem? There may be a
clue in section 2.7, where addresses assigned from ULAs are suggested
as the solution for renumbering network elements. Perhaps the bit I'm
missing is that addressing from ULAs avoids forced renumbering when
the organization prefix changes due to external causes?

In section 2.7, this claim may be true:

In any case, when network elements are renumbered, existing user
sessions may not survive, because of temporary "destination
unreachable" conditions being treated as fatal errors. This aspect
needs further investigation.

but what is its connection to renumbering static addresses?

Section 2.8 makes a valid point about the relationship between static
addresses and asset management, but goes into solution space when it
talks about DHCPv6 for configuring static addresses.

I don't understand the first paragraph of section 3.

From section 3:

4. If external prefix renumbering is required, the RFC 4192
procedure is followed.

What about renumbering required by strictly internal topology changes
in the network? I.e., I think "external" can be dropped.