Skip to main content

IPv6 Address Assignment to End Sites
RFC 6177

Yes

Lars Eggert
(Ron Bonica)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert Yes

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2010-12-16)
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

Yes ()

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2010-12-14)
 
"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

No Objection ()

                            

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2010-12-23)

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()