IANA-Reserved IPv4 Prefix for Shared Address Space
RFC 6598

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 15 and is now closed.

(Ron Bonica) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-11-30 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I concur with Stewart that there does not appear to be IETF consensus around this I-D.

I am concerned that the alternative to this has been presented as "if you don't allocate the address space, the ISPs will just squat on another space." However, this also seems to be less worser than any other proposal on the table.

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2012-02-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Based on more and more and more and more discussion I'm reluctantly 
ok with this. (Still)


In December I said: 

   I think additionally allocating part of 240/4 would be a fine thing to do at
   the same time within the same document. I would not be that keen on 
   punting on the 240/4 part allocation until later since that would engender
   most of the same discussion.

I still think that'd be good but it doesn't seem to have gotten traction
so I'm in the end also ok to go ahead without that.

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-12-01)
No email
send info
I agree with Ralph's DISCUSS: We need to first come up with a list of criteria by which consensus can be judged. While I agree with most folks that there is *disagreement* on the list as to whether this allocation should be made, I think some of the issues on which there is disagreement are not legitimate criteria for the consensus call. (For example, "Is CGN a viable service model for IPv4?" is *not* something that we should be using as a criteria for consensus.) Before we come to a conclusion on consensus, we need to lay out the legitimate issues being discussed and whether there is consensus on each of them.

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2011-09-12)
No email
send info
I suggest changing "heritage" to "legacy".

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

(Sean Turner) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-09-22)
No email
send info
1) I support Stewart's discuss.

2) I support Russ' discuss.

3) I support Wes' (and Pete's) discuss.

(Wesley Eddy) (was Discuss) Abstain

Comment (2011-11-29)
No email
send info
"NAT4444" should be "NAT444", I believe, in section 1, paragraph 3.

(David Harrington) (was Discuss) Abstain