Skip to main content

Reclassifying ICMPv6 (RFC4443) and DNS Extensions for IPv6 (RFC3596) to Internet Standard
status-change-icmpv6-dns-ipv6-to-internet-standard-02

Yes

Warren Kumari
(Alia Atlas)
(Suresh Krishnan)

No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Eric Rescorla)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Do we approve these RFC status changes?"

Warren Kumari
Yes
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01) Unknown

                            
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -01) Unknown

                            
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-04-07 for -01) Unknown
I have no objection in changing the state -- it might have been a little cleaner to change them separately (in independent actions) since they don't seem to depend on each other.

The change text mentions RFC3595 instead of RFC3596.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-04-12 for -01) Unknown
I was alsoconfused by the two-in-one request, but there is no point in changing it now.
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown

                            
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2017-04-11 for -01) Unknown
I agree that two independent requests would be clearer but as long as noone has an objection against one of them, I guess it's fine.
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -01) Unknown