IPv6 Subnet Model: The Relationship between Links and Subnet Prefixes
RFC 5942

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 12 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-22 for -)
No email
send info
I still find the description of the example in section 5 unclear.  The syntax in this passage is tortured:

   An address
   could be acquired through the DHCPv6 IA_NA option (which does not
   include a prefix length), or through manual configuration (if no
   prefix length is specified).  The host incorrectly assumes an
   invented prefix is on-link.  This invented prefix typically is a /64
   that was written by the developer of the API as a "default" prefix
   length when a length isn't specified.  This may cause the API to seem
   to work in the case of a network interface initiating SLAAC, however
   it can cause connectivity problems in NBMA networks.

What is the API referred to in the example?

The changes to the word "deprecate" and the new section on changes to RFC 4861 satisfy my comments on those details.

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-10 for -)
No email
send info
  The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 2010-03-09 included some
  editorial comments.  Please consider them if an update to this
  document is needed for any reason.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-10)
No email
send info
I support Lars' DISCUSS about the need to include mandatory 2119 boilerplate.

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection