Stewart Bryant's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)

"Stewart Bryant" <> Tue, 21 January 2014 12:47 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B4531A00D1; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:47:20 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id wrWjIofE-Flg; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:47:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11CB51A00C9; Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:47:19 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From: Stewart Bryant <>
To: The IESG <>
Subject: Stewart Bryant's No Objection on draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: (with COMMENT)
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 4.90.p2
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 04:47:18 -0800
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 21 Jan 2014 12:47:20 -0000

Stewart Bryant has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-6man-stable-privacy-addresses-16: 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
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


As Adrian says, this does not look like it impacts the routing systems so
based on a quick skim, no objection.

I am, however, left pondering as to whether a simple call to the system
RNG wouldn't work well enough most of the time.