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

From: Spencer Dawkins <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 Aug 2017 10:09:33 -0700

Spencer Dawkins 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:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

One nit:

Please consider moving

   Benefits of unique
   IPv6 prefix over a unique IPv6 address from the service provider
   include improved subscriber isolation and enhanced subscriber
   management.

to the first paragraph of the Abstract. I’m assuming that this explains the
“needs that have arisen” in the first sentence of the Abstract, of course.

---

From: "Van De Velde, Gunter (Nokia - BE/Antwerp)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 21 Aug 2017 14:34:05 +0000

Thanks for the suggestion. 
The abstract has been modified based upon IESG feedback.

As result only the last paragraph remains from the original text. It reads easier and is better to the point for an abstract.

All the best,
G/

On 15/08/2017, 19:09, "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]> wrote:

    
    
    One nit:
    
    Please consider moving
    
       Benefits of unique