I have made my AD review of this document and found no issues. The document will be moved forward.
By the way, note that the immediate need for this may be less pressing now than a few months before. DNA WG who was previously planning to use more bits is now re-considering their solution for other reasons and the new solution may not end up needing bits at all. Also, I saw that the WGLC response came from just a few persons. I'm not too happy about that but perhaps it is acceptable in this case given that the document is merely a maintenance update to provide more space for future extensions. Jari -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
