DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes
RFC 8115
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alissa Cooper; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mirja Kühlewind; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
- (nit) section 3: it seems odd to say in the figure that the prefixes are variable length but to then say the lengths of two of them MUST be 96 bits. (I do think having the fields as is is good for futureproofing, but would suggest changing the figure.) - (non-nit:-) section 3: I'm not getting why the unicast-length can be >96? And what if the prefix length is not one of those given in RFC6052? Don't you need to say it needs to be? - (not sure about nittyness:-) section 5: 1st bullet: I'm not following what "matches" means here. Probably my ignorance but is it clear?
(Suresh Krishnan; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.