Explicit Address Mappings for Stateless IP/ICMP Translation
draft-ietf-v6ops-siit-eam-03
Yes
(Joel Jaeggli)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Barry Leiba)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stephen Farrell)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -01)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-10-13 for -01)
Unknown
This document updates rfc6145, and it looks like the intent (from 3.3.1 and 3.3.2) is to replace whatever rfc6145 says with the outcome described, unless "no matching EAM entry is found". Please be specific about which parts of rfc6145 are being replaced — 1-2 sentences in Section 3.3 should be enough. Having said that, I am a little confused. The Introduction says that "If no matching mapping exists, the [RFC6052] algorithm will be used instead.", but 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 both say that "If no matching EAM entry is found, the EAM algorithm is aborted. The SIIT implementation MUST proceed to translate the address in accordance with [RFC6145]". My confusion may be due to just not being familiar with the relationship between rfc6145 and rfc6052; please clarify.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-10-15 for -02)
Unknown
Thanks for answering my comment. Regards, Benoit
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-10-14 for -01)
Unknown
I have no issues with the publication of this draft, but want to point out that there an abundance of misuses of 2119 keywords. Section 3.1 provides useful examples: An SIIT implementation MUST include an Explicit Address Mapping Table (EAMT). By default, the EAMT SHOULD be empty. The operator MUST be able to populate the EAMT using the implementation's normal configuration interfaces. The implementation MAY additionally support other ways of populating the EAMT. - How a SIIT implementation manages the mappings has no bearing on the functionality. So, saying "MUST include an EAMT" is not needed. - SHOULD be empty? At what point? During implementation? - Why "MUST be able to populate"?
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -01)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -02)
Unknown