Skip to main content

Internet Numbers Registries
RFC 7249

Yes

(Jari Arkko)
(Richard Barnes)
(Sean Turner)

No Objection

(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)

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

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2014-01-25 for -03)
-03 fixes the IANA Considerations issues; thanks.

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2014-01-22 for -02)
... but modulo the need to tidy up the IANA text as proposed by Barry.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-20 for -02)
Teetering on the brink of a Discuss.

There appears to be an IETF Last Call comment that was not addressed. I think the second issue (that of an apparent contradiction) needs to be resolved and is sort of Discussable.

===

Section 2.1 says...

   Reservations of special-purpose AS Numbers are made through Internet
   Standards actions.

Section 2.2 says...

   Reservation of special-purpose IPv4 addresses are made through
   Internet Standards actions.

Section 2.3 says...

   Reservation of special-purpose IPv6 addresses are made through
   Internet Standards actions.

Section 3 says...

   "IETF Review" as defined in [RFC5226] is required to reserve special-
   purpose AS numbers, IPv4 addresses, or IPv6 addresses.

1. 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3 should have a reference to 5226
2. Section 3 contradicts 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3.
3. Why is Section 3 present since there are no instructions for IANA?

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-27 for -03)
I've cleared.  Thanks for addressing my concerns.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-23 for -02)
like some others teetering on the brink of discuss:

>  However, the 16-bit AS numbers are really just zero through
   65535 of the 32-bit AS number space.

they are, but really implementation wise they fill the least signficant 16 bits. which is why the silly dot notation existed.

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-22 for -02)
I have nothing to add beyond Barry's discuss points.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2014-01-22 for -02)

- I didn't get the logic for why the registry content
should be included here again, such duplication seems
like a bad plan.

- I also didn't get the reason for this draft, and
neither did the secdir reviewer.

Sorry if I've missed the explanations for the above
in mail.