Skip to main content

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes
draft-ietf-softwire-multicast-prefix-option-15

Yes

(Terry Manderson)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja K├╝hlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Terry Manderson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -11) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Mirja K├╝hlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-01-31 for -12) Unknown
- (nit) section 3: it seems odd to say in the
figure that the prefixes are variable length but to
then say the lengths of two of them MUST be 96
bits. (I do think having the fields as is is good
for futureproofing, but would suggest changing the
figure.)

- (non-nit:-) section 3: I'm not getting why the
unicast-length can be >96? And what if the prefix
length is not one of those given in RFC6052? Don't
you need to say it needs to be?

- (not sure about nittyness:-) section 5: 1st
bullet: I'm not following what "matches" means
here. Probably my ignorance but is it clear?
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2017-02-03) Unknown
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.