IPv6 Enterprise Network Analysis - IP Layer 3 Focus
RFC 4852
Yes
No Objection
Abstain
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
The reference [V6DEF] is not filled in (referenced in section 5), nor is [DNSV6REC], [NIS], [DHCPv4], [ADDRCONF], [IPSEC] or [PRIVv6]. I wish the "works in progress" references had pointers (like [DNSV6]), are they not Internet Drafts? "At the time of writing, best practice in IPv6 site address planning is restricted due to limited wide-scale deployments." Does this mean "At the time of writing, solid details on best practice in IPv6 address planning is restricted..."? I am pretty sure it doesn't mean that the applicability of best practice is limited...
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Abstain
I think this document fails to meet many of it's goals. I don't think it will help an enterprise figure out how to transition to v6 - there is so many critical things it does not mention, like applications that run on hosts. I have a hard time imagining any easy way to fix it.
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Abstain
The response to my DISCUSS position was much lighter than I had hoped. I do not think the point is worth further delay. I have changed my position to ABSTAIN.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain
This document rules so many important things out of scope--nat used for V4, firewalls, application issues--that it is useless in my mind. The best I can say is that I don't think it will do any harm.