A Discard Prefix for IPv6
RFC 6666
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
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.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my issue with the Security Considerations section.
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I agree with Pete's DISCUSS on this document.
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
I think "militating" should be "mitigating" in the abstract.