Ballot for draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Quick refresh, and a copy from the shepherd write-up: --- The document was retuned to the 6MAN working to resolve an issue with a normative reference to <draft-ietf-snac-simple>. After discussion at the last IETF meeting and on the list, a way to make that reference Informative was developed, the current version does that. The changes can be seen in this diff: https://author-tools.ietf.org/iddiff?url1=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-03&url2=draft-ietf-6man-snac-router-ra-flag-04&difftype=--html --- I.e., beside the above discussion, some other changes were done.
Hi Jonathan, 6MAN, Thank you for the effort put into the new revision to unlock cluster C525. My suggestions were already addressed [1][2]. I have no additional comments. Cheers, Med [1] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/jfI9KJzIS4t6_WHQdptVwLTs4dI/ [2] https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/x1_mGXd5LiZ9dposM-e3sHtx6fU/
Thanks to the authors and WG for keeping this draft short and clear. Thanks to Jen Linkova for the extremely helpful and up-to-date shepherds' write-up.
Thank you for the short and simple draft. I also noticed the "transmit" vs "transit" typo. ;)
Thanks to both Prachi Jain and Shivan Sahib for their secdir reviews. Section 1, first sentence: Perhaps 'transmit' should be 'transit'? Section 1, para 2: Spell out ND the first time it appears (it is not on the well-known list). I look forward to balloting on draft-ietf-snac-simple, apparently most of the security considerations will be there.
I don't object, but it's unclear to me why a separate document is needed when it appears everything of relevance is in the other document. Isn't this what Early Allocation is for?
Thank you to Gyan Mishra for the GENART review.
This is a straightforward and simple document that describes a well-scoped piece of a larger scenario. I have no objection or concern.