Telechat Review of draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02
review-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02-opsdir-telechat-fioccola-2025-03-12-00
| Request | Review of | draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign |
|---|---|---|
| Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 03) | |
| Type | Telechat Review | |
| Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
| Deadline | 2025-04-15 | |
| Requested | 2025-02-09 | |
| Authors | Brian E. Carpenter , Suresh Krishnan , David Farmer | |
| I-D last updated | 2025-04-24 (Latest revision 2025-04-24) | |
| Completed reviews |
Artart IETF Last Call review of -02
by Arnt Gulbrandsen
(diff)
Secdir Telechat review of -02 by Scott G. Kelly (diff) Opsdir Telechat review of -02 by Giuseppe Fioccola (diff) Intdir Telechat review of -02 by Brian Haberman (diff) |
|
| Assignment | Reviewer | Giuseppe Fioccola |
| State | Completed | |
| Request | Telechat review on draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
| Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/aFlYJ96roAKunolJcmLa11a7vCk | |
| Reviewed revision | 02 (document currently at 03) | |
| Result | Has nits | |
| Completed | 2025-03-12 |
review-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02-opsdir-telechat-fioccola-2025-03-12-00
This document proposes to change the approval level of IPv6 address allocations by complying with the "IETF Review" process, defined by BCP 26. It is also mentioned the experience with RFC 9602, which already followed this process. I think that the document has a well defined scope and explains the reasons clearly. I was wondering about the IANA feedback, since the current IANA review state is Not OK. But, after reading the Intdir telechat review, I realized that IANA is OK with the requested action. I only noticed this nit and I suggest to ask IANA to review the state and fix it in order to avoid any confusion.