IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space
draft-weil-shared-transition-space-request-15
Yes
(Ron Bonica)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
Abstain
(David Harrington)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.
Yes
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2011-11-30)
Unknown
I concur with Stewart that there does not appear to be IETF consensus around this I-D. I am concerned that the alternative to this has been presented as "if you don't allocate the address space, the ISPs will just squat on another space." However, this also seems to be less worser than any other proposal on the table.
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2011-12-01)
Unknown
I agree with Ralph's DISCUSS: We need to first come up with a list of criteria by which consensus can be judged. While I agree with most folks that there is *disagreement* on the list as to whether this allocation should be made, I think some of the issues on which there is disagreement are not legitimate criteria for the consensus call. (For example, "Is CGN a viable service model for IPv4?" is *not* something that we should be using as a criteria for consensus.) Before we come to a conclusion on consensus, we need to lay out the legitimate issues being discussed and whether there is consensus on each of them.
No Objection
(2011-09-12)
Unknown
I suggest changing "heritage" to "legacy".
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2012-02-15)
Unknown
No Objection
()
Unknown
No Objection
(2011-09-22)
Unknown
1) I support Stewart's discuss. 2) I support Russ' discuss. 3) I support Wes' (and Pete's) discuss.
No Objection
(2012-02-14)
Unknown
Based on more and more and more and more discussion I'm reluctantly ok with this. (Still) In December I said: I think additionally allocating part of 240/4 would be a fine thing to do at the same time within the same document. I would not be that keen on punting on the 240/4 part allocation until later since that would engender most of the same discussion. I still think that'd be good but it doesn't seem to have gotten traction so I'm in the end also ok to go ahead without that.
No Objection
()
Unknown
Abstain
()
Unknown
Abstain
(2011-11-29)
Unknown
"NAT4444" should be "NAT444", I believe, in section 1, paragraph 3.