IPv6 Implications for Network Scanning
RFC 5157

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-27 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 1., paragraph 6:
>    Finally, note that this document is currently intended to be
>    informational; there is not yet sufficient deployment experience for
>    it to be considered BCP.

  Suggest to rephrase "is currently intended to be" as "has been
  published as".


Section 10., paragraph 2:
>    [2]   Thomson, S. and T. Narten, "IPv6 Stateless Address
>          Autoconfiguration", RFC 2462, December 1998.

  Obsoleted by RFC 4862.


Section 10., paragraph 3:
>    [3]   Narten, T. and R. Draves, "Privacy Extensions for Stateless
>          Address Autoconfiguration in IPv6", RFC 3041, January 2001.

  Obsoleted by RFC 4941.


Section 10., paragraph 12:
>    [12]  Davies, E., Krishnan, S., and P. Savola, "IPv6 Transition/
>          Co-existence Security Considerations
>          (draft-ietf-v6ops-security-overview-06)", October 2007.

  Published as RFC 4942.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2007-10-31 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Section 3.2 

I suspect I am not understanding this because I am thinking it might require a huge number of DNS entries. How many entries will this be in DNS? Is that amount alright? 


Section 5.5 , para 2.

I don't see how this would help - wouldn't spammer just use the DNS name?


Section 2.5 

I'm a little confused by what you mean by "on link" here when we are talking about switches. Do you just mean that the Administrator will have ways of knowing all the IP talking to the switches? 

Section 5.4 - note this is a comment not discuss. 
I am somewhat uncomfortable with a information document from a different WG putting strong specifications on how a DHCP server should work.

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(Sam Hartman) Abstain

Comment (2007-10-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I don't think the quality or value of this document justifies publication.

(Chris Newman) Abstain

Comment (2007-11-01 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I concur with Sam.