Skip to main content

Generation of IPv6 Atomic Fragments Considered Harmful
RFC 8021

Yes

(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Suresh Krishnan)

No Objection

(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

Comment (2016-08-31 for -07)
I'm not going to stand in the way of publication, but I don't think we need to publish this document: it already served it's purpose.  Evidence of that is in RFC7915, rfc2460bis...

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -07)

                            

(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -07)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2016-08-31 for -07)
I have to say I agree with the tsv-art review that it is not fully clear to me that this explanation needs an own document. For me a much short rational for this change (1 or max. 2 paragraphs) that could be integrated in 2460bis would be sufficient (also given that this document has soe redundancy).

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)