Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Thanks for rapidly addressing my DISCUSS point.
Like Suresh, I really appreciated the discussion of rationale in section 4. There is one possibility that I'm surprised is not discussed; namely, allocating 64:ff9b::/48 for this purpose, with the subset of addresses in 64:ff9b::/96 being *additionally* subject to the restrictions of RFC 6052. This would seem to have the advantages of: - Complete address adjacency without the disadvantages of using 64:ff9a:ffff::/48 - Sharing an even longer prefix (48 bits) than the 31-bit and 47-bit prefixes discussed in the document - Eliminating the caveat described in the final paragraph of section 5 entirely This is obvious enough that it had to be considered and rejected by the WG; including the rationale for rejecting it seems appropriate here.