Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Suresh Krishnan) Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Deborah Brungard) No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2016-08-31 for -07)
No email
send info
I have to say I agree with the tsv-art review that it is not fully clear to me that this explanation needs an own document. For me a much short rational for this change (1 or max. 2 paragraphs) that could be integrated in 2460bis would be sufficient (also given that this document has soe redundancy).

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-08-31 for -07)
No email
send info
I'm not going to stand in the way of publication, but I don't think we need to publish this document: it already served it's purpose.  Evidence of that is in RFC7915, rfc2460bis...