Ballot for draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3849-update
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
A short, nice, and useful document. Thanks for taking the time for authoring it. Thanks to Ed Horley for the detailed shepherd write-up *but* there is no justification for the intended status (perhaps just a reference to RFC 3849 ?). Nevertheless, I think that the document would benefit from: - using RFC 5952 canonical IPv6 address representation (or at least stick to all lowercase or all uppercase) - remove the BCP 14 template as it is *not* used (this will even make the I-D shorter ;-) ) - the IANA section should clearly mention "IANA IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registry" in the text (and not only as a reference) More important, I think that the security considerations should add something like "this /20 should be considered as bogon (add reference), i.e., packets whose src/dst belongs to this /20 should be dropped over the public Internet' (note the non-normative language).
I agree with Éric Vyncke's comment on the Security Considerations.
Thanks to Barry Leiba for his ARTART review. I concur with Eric's remark about the IANA Considerations section, and would add that the first sentence doesn't seem to be complete.
Thank you to Reese Enghardt for the GENART review.
Thanks for working on this document. If the section 4 has no content then why are we having that section?