A Discard Prefix for IPv6
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Ron Bonica) Yes
(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-06-09 for -04)
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS on this document.
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2012-05-22 for -04)
Thanks for addressing my issue with the Security Considerations section.
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
Comment (2012-01-30 for -)
I think "militating" should be "mitigating" in the abstract.
(Adrian Farrel) No Objection
Comment (2012-02-01 for -)
A bit like Stephen's Comment... Section 3 contains to "SHOULD NOT" directives. This is an implication that these directives can be varied. Do you want to describe how and why, or do you want to change to "MUST NOT"? Obviously, these "SHOULD NOTs" also impact the security discussion.
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2012-01-29 for -)
Hi Nick, I don't get why the 3rd party AS stuff is SHOULD NOT and not MUST NOT. I think it'd be better to s/should not/ought not/ in section 5 to avoid possible 2119 confusion. S