Access Network Identifier (ANI) Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Brian Haberman Yes

( Ron Bonica ) No Objection

( Stewart Bryant ) No Objection

( Gonzalo Camarillo ) No Objection

Benoit Claise (was Discuss) No Objection

( Ralph Droms ) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-19 for -11)
I've cleared.

( Wesley Eddy ) No Objection

( Adrian Farrel ) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-23 for -10)
This is a not-quite-Discuss Comment

I think a number of references listed as Informative need to be moved
to Normative. Specifically:

RFC 3629
RFC 1035
RFC 6275

I am in two mindsabout RFC2460.

Happy to discuss why/whether this would be appropriate, but it looks
like the uses are explicit "do encode this thing you need to read this
reference" type of statements.

Stephen Farrell (was Discuss) No Objection

( Russ Housley ) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2012-05-16 for -10)
IANA Considerations rant:

   o  Action-1: This specification defines a new Mobility Header option,
      the Access Network Identifier.  This mobility option is described
      in Section 3.  The Type value for this option needs to be assigned
      from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
      options, as defined in [RFC6275].

I noticed the same problem that confused IANA, and was going to kick in a
DISCUSS to get it fixed: the registry is called "Mobility Options", and
referring to it as a "Mobility Header option" confused it with the "Mobility
Header Types" registry.  No need for the DISCUSS, though, because the author
noticed the error in Pearl's proposed IANA actions, and sorted it out by email.

So this comment will just serve to beat people up about this, and to rant a
bit.  You can otherwise ignore it: Folks, it's just not that hard to go to and actually *look up* the correct name of the
registry you aim to use... and then to use the *exact* name.  Please be
specific and accurate; it's important.

( Pete Resnick ) (was Discuss) No Objection

( Robert Sparks ) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-09 for -13)
I assume the conclusion of the discussion you were having at IETF about the
encoding of SSIDs fell out to UTF-8 instead of raw bits?

Martin Stiemerling No Objection

( Sean Turner ) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-24 for -10)
I'm piling on with Stephen and Robert.