Updates to the Special-Purpose IP Address Registries
draft-bchv-rfc6890bis-07

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Joel Jaeggli) Yes

Suresh Krishnan (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Comment (2017-04-07 for -06)
No email
send info
The draft has been rewritten as an update to RFC6890 to clarify past IESG and IANA concerns.

My previous DISCUSS position:

After looking at the comments from the IESG and IANA, it seems better to rewrite this document as an update to RFC6890 for improved clarity. The authors will work on a new version written as an update to RFC6890. I will put it up on future telechat when it is ready.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2017-03-15 for -05)
No email
send info
I share the concern raided by Suresh and Benoit about the difficulty in reviewing this draft without a summary of changes. There were similar concerns raised by the GenART and RTGDIR reviewers.

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2017-04-26 for -06)
No email
send info
Thank you for the improvements from version 5 to version 6.

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Warren Kumari No Objection

Mirja Kühlewind No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2017-04-24 for -06)
No email
send info
I am happier with the latest version and its relationship to RFC 6890.

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

(Eric Rescorla) No Objection

Comment (2017-04-24 for -06)
No email
send info
S 2.2.
Why was the Reserved-by-Protocol value for 255.255.255.255
changed? A sentence here about why would help.

S 3.
Daniel's name is spelled "Migault"

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Adam Roach No Objection

Comment (2017-04-24 for -06)
No email
send info
Pointing 2001::/32 to the entire Teredo document casts a fairly large net. I think a reference to RFC4380 section 5 would get interested parties to the information they want more rapidly.