Hi Ron, Gen-art directorate, I’m checking with John on the most optimal way forward. While I am not that keen on the BCP status of the document, it was part of a motivation to split up the original draft on the subject discussing community wifi networks from the address related aspects. John and I will have a discussion on the subject and propose a path to resolution of the issue mentioned by gen-art.
G/ On 04/05/2017, 21:57, "Ron Bonica" <[email protected]> wrote: Folks, The following is status for draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host: - WG last call complete - OPSDIR, GENART and INTDIR reviews complete - write-up complete The following issue was raised in the GENART Review: " The proposed status seems questionable. We as a community are not recommending that operators assign unique prefixes to hosts. This document is saying "if you want to do that, here is a way, using existing tools, to make that work." The document also recommends specific setting of other flags (the O flag in the RA, for example) that are not closely coupled to the particular topic. This looks like an ordinary Informational RFC. I would have no concern with this being published with that label." Could the authors please address this issues. As soon as they have done so, we can send it to the IESG for publication. Ron _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
