IPv6 Router Advertisement Flags Option
RFC 5075
Yes
No Objection
No Record
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
In the para The assignment of new RA flags in the RA option header and for the bits defined in the RA extension option defined in this document require standards action or IESG approval. I think it would be good to reference RFC 2434.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) (was Yes) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Based on Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern: The document says that the length of the option is 1. This is in multiples of 8 octets, so there is lots of room. However, the text explicitly says that the length should be checked in case of future expansion. It ought to specify what to do if the length is not 1.
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
As specified, this option could be used even if all advertised capabilities are in bits 0 through 7. The router advertisement flags option should only be used if the router is advertising capabilities that are assigned bit 8 or higher by IANA. In my opinion, some MUST/MUST NOT language is needed.
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) (was No Objection) No Record