IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2010-04-22 for -)
I still find the description of the example in section 5 unclear. The syntax in this passage is tortured: An address could be acquired through the DHCPv6 IA_NA option (which does not include a prefix length), or through manual configuration (if no prefix length is specified). The host incorrectly assumes an invented prefix is on-link. This invented prefix typically is a /64 that was written by the developer of the API as a "default" prefix length when a length isn't specified. This may cause the API to seem to work in the case of a network interface initiating SLAAC, however it can cause connectivity problems in NBMA networks. What is the API referred to in the example? The changes to the word "deprecate" and the new section on changes to RFC 4861 satisfy my comments on those details.
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Comment (2010-03-10 for -)
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 2010-03-09 included some editorial comments. Please consider them if an update to this document is needed for any reason.
(Cullen Jennings) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection
I support Lars' DISCUSS about the need to include mandatory 2119 boilerplate.