Thank you to Scott Kelly for his secdir review.  His comment on Section 5 is repeated below to make it easier: 

     "The security considerations section says only this:

        'Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for any form of
         address-based security.'

      I don't disagree with this, but I had 2 reactions: first, I expected this
      section to either state that this doc adds no new considerations over those in
      the doc(s) it updates (e.g. RFC 7249), or to state any new considerations.
      Second, the phrase 'address-based security' gave me pause. We don't recommend
      basing security on unauthenticated addresses, do we? I wonder if it would be
      better not to risk leaving the reader with the wrong impression. "

I agree with his assessment, especially the confusion as to what 'address-based security' means.  My recommendation would be to reference the security considerations in RFC 7249.  Either delete the current sentence, or clarify its meaning.

Appendix A:  I also agree that the opportunity to clarify IANA registry names should be taken unless it causes interoperability issues.

I understand that this concise document enables a set of changes for the IANA procedures. 

IANA may be content, but it would be helpful for IANA to confirm what action, if any, they think is needed to consider the issues raised in Appendix A.

Many thanks for this write up. It is well written and a pleasure to read. 
Similar as Med mentioned I agree that the usage of the word "recently" does not age well.

Thanks for the work done on this document. I have one comment below that is provided using the idnits output for v02 of the document.


91	   Occasionally, IPv6 address space allocations are performed outside
92	   the scope of routine allocations to regional address registries.  For

<minor> I believe the usage of term RIR is more prevalent these days and this is also what is being used in the concerned IANA registry description. Suggest to update the same in this document.

93	   example, recently a substantial allocation was requested by an IETF
94	   document approved by the IESG [RFC9602]

Section 5, paragraph 0
>    Carefully reviewed address allocation mechanisms are necessary for
>    any form of address-based security.

Thanks to Scott Kelly for his SECDIR review. I do support his comment and that of Deb. It is not clear to me what it means to have "address-based security". Could some text be added to clarify that term?

This document makes sensible changes, but in some ways still reads like an argument to the working group that these changes are needed. At this point in the process, it's declaring the new state of things and explaining why the changes *are being* made. Remove things about "recently" / "currently" and stick to statements of fact rather than opinion.

I would like to see Appendix A better incorporated into the text of the document -- IANA makes changes based on directives in appropriate documents. This "draw[s] attention to" an issue without actually directing IANA to do anything about it; that doesn't require an RFC. Either describe the motivation for the change in the body of the document and direct IANA to rename the registry in the IANA Considerations, or remove it and send them an e-mail if it's actually entirely in their control. (I presume they're already aware.)

I also support Mohammed's DISCUSS about the registry name. Let's be precise, especially in a document saying we should have been more precise in the past.

Thanks for addressing my concerns. I have updated my ballot to No Objection.