Skip to main content

Analysis of the 64-bit Boundary in IPv6 Addressing
draft-ietf-6man-why64-08

Yes

(Brian Haberman)
(Ted Lemon)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Benoît Claise)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Richard Barnes)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (2014-10-29 for -07) Unknown
This is a nice document, thanks for taking the time to write it.

= Section 1 =
"The bits in the IID have no meaning and the entire identifier should
   be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]."

I understand what this means based on RFC7136, but it seems like it would be a little more clear to re-use the language from that document directly, e.g., 

"The bits in the IID may have significance only in the process of deriving the IID and once it is derived the entire identifier should be treated as an opaque value [RFC7136]."

= Section 4.5 =
This is probably not worth mentioning in the draft, but I'll write it down since the thought occurred to me: it's conceivable to argue that there could be a privacy benefit of shortening the IID, if it became so short that a hardware address could not be embedded in it. This benefit is quite obviously outweighed by the drawbacks you already describe in this section I think, but just food for thought.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -06) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -07) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-29 for -07) Unknown
Section 4.2

   o  Router implementations: Router implementors might interpret IETF
      standards such as [RFC6164] and [RFC7136] to indicate that

Maybe avoid any accidental confusion by using "specifications" rather
than "standards"
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2014-10-29 for -07) Unknown
The SecDir review looks good, thank you for your work on the draft.  
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg05118.html
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown