Internet Numbers Registries
RFC 7249
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
-03 fixes the IANA Considerations issues; thanks.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Richard Barnes; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) Yes
... but modulo the need to tidy up the IANA text as proposed by Barry.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I've cleared. Thanks for addressing my concerns.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
I have nothing to add beyond Barry's discuss points.
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- 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.