IPv6 Stateless Address Autoconfiguration
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(Margaret Cullen) Yes
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
I suggest adding another event to section 5.3. Consider an event that indicates that the physical network connectivity may have changed. Such events include a carrier down/carrier sequence on an Ethernet NIC, a change of SSID on an 802.11 network, or waking up from a "sleep" period.
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
My Discuss was not addressed at all - I believe that the WG ignored the spirit of the implementation report requirement - my Discuss said that we should know that there are multiple implementations that have handled the significant changes in the recycling of this Draft Standard. The group apparently refused to update its implementation report, but I believe did not respond on this. I did not intend to conduct a pocket veto, and I do not believe that my objection should have been played this way, if that's what happened. Clearing rather than punish the technical protocol for its context. I assume the interoperability testers are somewhere out in the world (IETF is not in this business).