Subject: [v6ops] Ben Campbell's Yes on draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: (with COMMENT)

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2016 15:22:44 -0700

Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability-06: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

While I am afraid the NAT66 cats are forever out of their bag, I am still
glad to see this draft.

Section 7: I _think_ the point of this section is to suggest that we
cannot reasonably estimate an upper limit. But if it says that
explicitly, I missed it. (I fear a careless reader will walk away
thinking "20" is a good limit)

Section 8: s/RECOMMENDED to not impose a hard limit/NOT RECOMMENDED to
impose a hard limit/

---

From: Lorenzo Colitti <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 13:05:02 +0900

Ben,

we've addressed the comments in -07.

> thinking "20" is a good limit)

We've attempted to to address this by adding the following sentence at the
end of the section:

   Thus, in general is is not possible to estimate in advance
   how many addresses are required.

Better?

> impose a hard limit/

Updated.

Regards,
Lorenzo

---

From: "Ben Campbell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 May 2016 14:24:33 -0500

It all looks good, thanks!

Ben.