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

(Bill Fenner) Yes

I'm glad to see documentation of design decisions (& changes thereto).  I wish there was more of this, so there could be less "What were they thinking in 2005 when they removed the on-link assumption!?" in 2010 ;-)

(David Kessens) Yes

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Gen-ART review will be at
http://www.alvestrand.no/ietf/gen/reviews/draft-ietf-v6ops-onlinkassumption-03-dawkins.txt

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

I found Section 3.3 very hard to parse.  This section, in particular:

   The second option
   might succeed in reaching a destination (assuming that one is
   reachable) but is more complex to implement, and isn't guaranteed to
   pick the correct destination.  For example, there is still ambiguity
   about which link to use if more than one node answers the
   solicitations on multiple links. 

In previous parts of Section 3, we seemed to be dealing with a host attempting to send
a packet using a known AAAA record.  In this section, it's not clear whether the argument
is that a host with multiple interfaces has an interface selection problem that is unresolvable
because of on-link assumptions, or that the on-link assumption again causes a poor ordering
of attempts to reach a host, or causes ambiguity because of non-globally unique addressing.
Some clarification would probably help here.

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

!! Missing citation for Informative reference:
  P007 L015:    [RFC2462]  Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address