A Discard Prefix for IPv6
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-discard-prefix-05
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-02-01)
Unknown
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.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-08)
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-05-22 for -04)
Unknown
Thanks for addressing my issue with the Security Considerations section.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-01-29)
Unknown
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
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-09 for -04)
Unknown
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS on this document.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-01-30)
Unknown
I think "militating" should be "mitigating" in the abstract.