[IPv6]Re: Paul Wouters' Discuss on draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02: (with DISCUSS)

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

Paul,

Thanks for the comments. We will definitely improve the security sentence
that Deb highlighted. As for the appendix (renaming the IANA pages) it would
be great to have a clear signal from the IESG whether it thinks they *should*
be renamed (subject to IANA comments). The WG had no strong opinion on that.

Regards
    Brian Carpenter

On 17-Apr-25 07:53, Paul Wouters via Datatracker wrote:
> Paul Wouters has entered the following ballot position for
> draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign-02: Discuss
> 
> 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/
> for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.
> 
> 
> The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
> https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-6man-addr-assign/
> 
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> DISCUSS:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> I agree with Deb's comment (as a discuss) and with Med's discuss that we should
> resolve or take an action item for the issue listed in appendix A and then
> remove appendix A. It now feels like appendix A is a [TODO] item destined to be
> forgotten and unresolved.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>