IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
draft-ietf-ipv6-addr-arch-v4-04
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) Yes
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Please remove the reference ([IPV6]) from the Abstract. In section 2.5: s/pervious paragraphs/previous paragraphs/
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) Abstain
Maybe I'm just confused, but there seem to be some changes in RFC 3513 and this draft that can't have been addressed in the interop report, which was written for RFC 2373. For example, Section 2.7 of 2373 says: scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value used to limit the scope of the multicast group. The values are: 0 reserved 1 node-local scope 2 link-local scope 3 (unassigned) 4 (unassigned) Section 2.7 of this draft says: scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value used to limit the scope of the multicast group. The values are: 0 reserved 1 interface-local scope 2 link-local scope 3 reserved 4 admin-local scope ... and "admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must be administratively configured, i.e., not automatically derived from physical connectivity or other, non- multicast-related configuration." I don't understand how value 4 can go from being unassigned to having a specific meaning and a configuration requirement without there being an implementation impact that would need to be described in an updated interop report. Howevere, given that the IESG has approved 3513 in the past I'll just note this observation and abstain.
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Recuse
I was serving on the IAB when this document: http://www.iab.org/appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html was issued. I believe that this makes it appropriate for me to recuse here.