IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites
RFC 6177
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
This document is spot-on, much needed, and its about time we publish it. I can warmly recommend it being approved as it is. I do have a few comments on other AD's comments, however. Regarding David's Discuss on IPv6-IPv6 address translation, I think the current text in the document is actually completely appropriate and should not be changed. It is indeed the case that we must avoid a situation where address translation becomes necessary from a mere tight address allocation policy reason. Regarding Robert's Discuss on IETF role, I think the text would probably read better and be more acceptable to you if it said ... the IETF's role ... *in this case*. That is what I think the authors meant. The IETF should not, IMO, dictate the exact allocation size but rather provide guidelines, for the reasons stated in the document. Regarding the possible need to ask for IAB's approval, I think this document is clearly within IETF's scope, the working group and the community is behind this proposal and I see no formal reason to ask previous authors (including the IAB) for a permission. From a basic politeness stance, maybe we should check with the IAB though. I propose that this be done as a "for information" query rather than as a formal review period, and the AD who holds the discuss can clear when we are satisfied that the IAB has had enough time to respond if they feel the need to.
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
"The exact choice of how much address space to assign end sites is an issue for the operational community. The role of the IETF is limited to providing guidance on IPv6 architectural and operational considerations. This document provides input into those discussions." I suggest this might be better worded as "This document provides input to the discussions of how much address space to assign end sites, as guidance to the operations community."
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection