Subject: [v6ops] Mirja Kühlewind's No Objection on draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: (with COMMENT)

From: Mirja Kühlewind <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 Aug 2017 11:19:05 -0700

Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host-07: No Objection

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-unique-ipv6-prefix-per-host/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

To me this seems approriate for BCP; I'm saying this because this was mentioned
in the shepherd-write-up as it was brought up by the gen-art review.

Please also consider the following comment from the gen-art review (Thanks
Joel!): "The issue of status for the document (BCP vs Informational) is for the
IESG
   to conclude.  However, even if it is a BCP, as I understand the purpose,
   this document is intended to describe the practices to be used when a
   provider has decided to deploy a /64 per host.  The wording that is chosen
   throughout the document makes it appear that the underlying decision about
   such a deployment is also a recommended practice."
I agree that wording could be made clearer here!