Summary: Has enough positions to pass.
The draft has been rewritten as an update to RFC6890 to clarify past IESG and IANA concerns. My previous DISCUSS position: After looking at the comments from the IESG and IANA, it seems better to rewrite this document as an update to RFC6890 for improved clarity. The authors will work on a new version written as an update to RFC6890. I will put it up on future telechat when it is ready.
I share the concern raided by Suresh and Benoit about the difficulty in reviewing this draft without a summary of changes. There were similar concerns raised by the GenART and RTGDIR reviewers.
I am clearing my DISCUSS as per DISCUSS from Suresh. My old DISCUSS below: A document that obsoletes an existing RFC needs to contain section describing changes since. I haven't found this. (Ben and Benoit are effectively explained this in more details.)
Please take a look at the RTGDir review from Dan Frost: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/rtg-dir/o0wVKmUiLodDQbcaDPeRQ0hLpFM
I find myself in a situation in which I have no clue how to review this document. - Should we compare information with https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv4-special-registry/iana-ipv4-special-registry.xhtml and https://www.iana.org/assignments/iana-ipv6-special-registry/iana-ipv6-special-registry.xhtml ? - Should we do a diff with RFC6890? - Something else? All the information I can read is: This memo reiterates the assignments made to the IPv4 and IPv6 Special-Purpose Address Registries and augments the fields contained within the registries in order to address the confusion raised by the definition of "global". Should I spend my time trying to determine what has been augmented. This really calls for a "what has changed since RFC 6890" section My ballot status: No record.