> Technical Summary: Relevant content can frequently be found in the
> abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be
> an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or
The abstract reads:
This document describes the global and other specialized IPv6
blocks.It does not address IPv6 address space assigned to operators
and users through the Regional Internet Registries. These
descriptions are useful for route and IP filtering, for
and other purposes.
> Working Group Summary: Was there anything in WG process that is
> worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular
> points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly
The big thing to note was the level of review and the willingness of
Marc to respond to the review.
> Document Quality: Are there existing implementations of the
> protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan
> to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit
> special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that
> resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had
> no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type or
> other expert review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of
> a Media Type review, on what date was the request posted?
This is not a protocol; it is in essence a BGP policy filtering
recommendation. It is fairly widely implemented in IPv6 networks.
Fred Baker is shephard. Ron Bonica is AD.