Internet Numbers Registries
draft-housley-number-registries-04
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(2014-01-25 for -03)
Unknown
-03 fixes the IANA Considerations issues; thanks.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -02)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-01-22 for -02)
Unknown
... but modulo the need to tidy up the IANA text as proposed by Barry.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-20 for -02)
Unknown
Teetering on the brink of a Discuss. There appears to be an IETF Last Call comment that was not addressed. I think the second issue (that of an apparent contradiction) needs to be resolved and is sort of Discussable. === Section 2.1 says... Reservations of special-purpose AS Numbers are made through Internet Standards actions. Section 2.2 says... Reservation of special-purpose IPv4 addresses are made through Internet Standards actions. Section 2.3 says... Reservation of special-purpose IPv6 addresses are made through Internet Standards actions. Section 3 says... "IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226] is required to reserve special- purpose AS numbers, IPv4 addresses, or IPv6 addresses. 1. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 should have a reference to 5226 2. Section 3 contradicts 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3. 3. Why is Section 3 present since there are no instructions for IANA?
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-27 for -03)
Unknown
I've cleared. Thanks for addressing my concerns.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-23 for -02)
Unknown
like some others teetering on the brink of discuss: > However, the 16-bit AS numbers are really just zero through 65535 of the 32-bit AS number space. they are, but really implementation wise they fill the least signficant 16 bits. which is why the silly dot notation existed.
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -02)
Unknown
I have nothing to add beyond Barry's discuss points.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -02)
Unknown
- I didn't get the logic for why the registry content should be included here again, such duplication seems like a bad plan. - I also didn't get the reason for this draft, and neither did the secdir reviewer. Sorry if I've missed the explanations for the above in mail.