IP Version 6 Addressing Architecture
RFC 4291

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Margaret Cullen) Yes

(Sam Hartman) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2005-05-11)
No email
send info
  Please remove the reference ([IPV6]) from the Abstract.

  In section 2.5: s/pervious paragraphs/previous paragraphs/

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection

(Scott Hollenbeck) Abstain

Comment (2005-05-10 for -)
No email
send info
Maybe I'm just confused, but there seem to be some changes in RFC 3513 and this draft that can't have been addressed in the interop report, which was written for RFC 2373.  For example, Section 2.7 of 2373 says:

scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value used to limit the scope of
the multicast group.  The values are:

   0  reserved
   1  node-local scope
   2  link-local scope
   3  (unassigned)
   4  (unassigned)

Section 2.7 of this draft says:

scop is a 4-bit multicast scope value used to limit the scope of
the multicast group.  The values are:

   0  reserved
   1  interface-local scope
   2  link-local scope
   3  reserved
   4  admin-local scope
   ...

and

"admin-local scope is the smallest scope that must be
administratively configured, i.e., not automatically
derived from physical connectivity or other, non-
multicast-related configuration."

I don't understand how value 4 can go from being unassigned to having a specific meaning and a configuration requirement without there being an implementation impact that would need to be described in an updated interop report.  Howevere, given that the IESG has approved 3513 in the past I'll just note this observation and abstain.

(Ted Hardie) Recuse

Comment (2005-05-10 for -)
No email
send info
I was serving on the IAB when this document:

http://www.iab.org/appeals/kre-ipng-address-arch-draft-standard-response.html

was issued.  I believe that this makes it appropriate for me to recuse here.