A Discard Prefix for IPv6
RFC 6666

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-09 for -04)
No email
send info
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS on this document.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-22 for -04)
No email
send info
Thanks for addressing my issue with the Security Considerations section.

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

Comment (2012-01-30 for -)
No email
send info
I think "militating" should be "mitigating" in the abstract.

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2012-02-01 for -)
No email
send info
A bit like Stephen's Comment...

Section 3 contains to "SHOULD NOT" directives. This is an implication
that these directives can be varied. Do you want to describe how and
why, or do you want to change to "MUST NOT"?

Obviously, these "SHOULD NOTs" also impact the security discussion.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-01-29 for -)
No email
send info
Hi Nick,

I don't get why the 3rd party AS stuff is SHOULD NOT and not 
MUST NOT. 

I think it'd be better to s/should not/ought not/ in section 5 to
avoid possible 2119 confusion.

S

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection