Skip to main content

DHCPv6 Option for IPv4-Embedded Multicast and Unicast IPv6 Prefixes
RFC 8115

Yes

(Terry Manderson)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja K├╝hlewind)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 11 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana
No Objection
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -11)

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -13)

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Mirja K├╝hlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -12)

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-01-31 for -12)
- (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 IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2017-02-03)
Thanks for addressing my DISCUSS points.