Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Summary: Needs 5 more YES or NO OBJECTION positions to pass.
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
http://www.iana.org/protocols/ 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.
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:
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.
Comment (2012-07-19 for -11)
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?