Internet Numbers Registries
draft-housley-number-registries-04

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Richard Barnes) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) Yes

Comment (2014-01-22 for -02)
No email
send info
... but modulo the need to tidy up the IANA text as proposed by Barry.

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2014-01-25 for -03)
No email
send info
-03 fixes the IANA Considerations issues; thanks.

(Sean Turner) Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-22 for -02)
No email
send info
I have nothing to add beyond Barry's discuss points.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-20 for -02)
No email
send info
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?

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-22 for -02)
No email
send info

- 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.

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-27 for -03)
No email
send info
I've cleared.  Thanks for addressing my concerns.

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-23 for -02)
No email
send info
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.

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection