Survey of IPv4 Addresses in Currently Deployed IETF Internet Area Standards Track and Experimental Documents
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
(Bert Wijnen) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
The -04 version of the apps doc addresses the specific concerns I had with it. I think the document should go out.
(Steven Bellovin) No Objection
I have only reviewed the security document. It looks pretty good, but Section 7 doesn't mention 2514. As far as I know, it's not in use, but with increasing attention to routing security there may be some push to move it to standards track.
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
The Internet document says: "3.1 RFC 791 Internet Protocol This specification defines IPv4 and is replaced by the IPv6 specifications." ...which I think is a bit strange. IPv6 does not update or obsolete IPv4. It's a different beast altogether. But, I don't think that this is a serious enough issue to block the document.
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ned Freed) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-intro-05: In section 1.1, 4th paragraph: s/robudt/robust/ In section 1.1, 7th paragraph, the document says: 'To do this the Internet has sacrificed the underlying "End-to-End" principle.' I hope that we have not 'sacrificed' it entirely. While I understand the point, I think that the sentence is too terse for many readers. The end-to-end principle was waterered-down, not completely sacrificed. In section 1.2, 1st paragraph: s/Experimental Standards/Experimental RFCs/ draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv4survey-apps-03: In section 3.16, the formatting is messed up. Please fix as follows: OLD: Also, Section 5.3.2 (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains: "
::= , , , ::= , ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255" NEW: Also, Section 5.3.2 (FTP COMMAND ARGUMENTS) contains: " ::= , , , ::= , ::= any decimal integer 1 through 255" In Section 5.57, formatting of the quoted text almost impossible to follow. In section 7.2.1, what is the value of the expired ID name in the document?
(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss) No Objection
I have completed a careful reading of this and I think it did a good job. I appreciate the excellent response to my early review which was sent to the v6ops WG chairs - this review stated that the organization of the document focused on Transport documents that would have been deprecated if our policy was not to let old PS's lie, and on documents which had been obsoleted (e.g. RFC 2543). The new review is very thorough and accurate, now of the right range of documents.
(Thomas Narten) No Objection
(Alex Zinin) No Objection
Checked the routing doc. There has been a discussion on this doc on the routing area mailing list and the rev seems to reflect the comments.