Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

"The use of specific multicast addresses for documentation purposes has no impact on security."

Actually isn't it a security improvement?

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

I would propose one text improvement:
OLD:

  GLOP [RFC3180] is a method for deriving IPv4 multicast group
   addresses from 16 bit AS numbers.


NEW:
   GLOP [RFC3180] can be used by anyone who owns a registered AS number
   to derive 256 global multicast addresses, by mapping the AS number in the
   middle 16 bits of the IPv4 multicast address 233/8.

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

I think it is a shame that the useful explanatory text is proposed for deletion from the IANA section. It would be nice to convert this into something that will record the motivation.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) (was Discuss) No Objection

I've cleared my DISCUSS.  Thanks for addressing these issues.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

I won't object given that RFC5737 and RFC3849 were both Informational, but shouldn't this kind of thing be BCP?

I agree that the IANA Considerations section needs serious rewriting. It needs to include the list of reserved addresses.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection