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 

I think it'd be better to s/should not/ought not/ in section 5 to
avoid possible 2119 confusion.


(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection