IANA Guidelines for IPv4 Multicast Address Assignments
draft-ietf-mboned-rfc3171bis-08
Yes
Lars Eggert
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ross Callon)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
Yes
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-11-16)
Unknown
Would be nice to include a "Changes from RFC 3171" section.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-11-18)
Unknown
I agree that yearly review of assigned ranges by IANA is excessive. There's already a requirement for IANA to freeing up unrenewed registrations within 30 days. A single review of the registry triggered by this document, followed by that renewal/freeing process, ought to suffice for the next few years.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2009-11-16)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 19-Oct-2009 included some
suggestions:
- Due to the nature of the draft, I think it makes sense to promote
RFC 5226 to a normative reference.
- Expand terms at the first occurrence. This includes:
Section 1: SDP, SAP, GLOP, SSM
Section 8: VMTP
Section 9: ASN
Section 9.2: RIR, AS, eGLOP
- Section 9.2 contains two similar abbreviations: eGLOP and EGLOP.
Those are probably the same and should be unified.
- The document uses quite a few references to URLs. The RFC Editor
does not like this approach because URLs often change with time. So,
I would suggest to refer to the title of the web page instead. It
might be possible that the RFC Editor accepts the addition of a
reference to a URL (which should be valid for some time), but the
main link should be done to the content, not to the URL. This
includes:
Section 1: http://www.iana.org/numbers.html
This page is already obsolete, and the URL redirects to
http://www.iana.org/protocols/; I suggest to refer to the "IANA
Protocol Registries [IANA-protocols]", and the link is in the
reference [IANA-protocols].
Section 11: http://www.iana.org/protocols/apply
I suggest to refer to the "IANA Protocol Registration Forms
[IANA-registration]", moving the link to the [IANA-registration]
reference.
- There is no reference to [SDR], used in Section 7.
- Reference to RFC 1190 is obsolete. RFC 1819 should be used instead.
- Reference to RFC 2030 is obsolete. RFC 4330 should be used instead.
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown