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 Kühlewind)
(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 Kühlewind 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.