• Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WG
  • Awaiting Expert Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting External Review/Resolution of Issues Raised
  • Awaiting Merge with Other Document
  • Author or Editor Needed
  • Waiting for Referenced Document
  • Waiting for Referencing Document
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by WGLC
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by AD
  • Revised I-D Needed - Issue raised by IESG
  • Doc Shepherd Follow-up Underway
  • Other - see Comment Log

IETF :: xrblock

Current state: WG Document

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.

2013-04-08 10:24 (System)

IANA Action state changed to RFC-Ed-Ack from Waiting on RFC Editor

2013-04-07 00:12 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on RFC Editor from Waiting on Authors

2013-04-03 15:24 Cindy Morgan

State changed to RFC Ed Queue from Approved-announcement sent

2013-04-03 15:22 (System)

RFC Editor state changed to MISSREF

2013-04-03 15:22 (System)

Announcement was received by RFC Editor

2013-04-03 13:17 (System)

IANA Action state changed to Waiting on Authors from In Progress

2013-04-03 12:42 (System)

IANA Action state changed to In Progress

2013-04-03 06:35 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement sent from Approved-announcement to be sent

2013-04-03 06:35 Amy Vezza

IESG has approved the document

2013-04-03 06:35 Amy Vezza

Closed "Approve" ballot

2013-04-03 06:35 Amy Vezza

Ballot approval text was generated

2013-04-03 06:35 Amy Vezza

State changed to Approved-announcement to be sent from IESG Evaluation::AD Followup

2013-03-24 23:29 Wenson Wu

New revision available

2013-03-22 01:48 Benoit Claise

[Ballot comment]
Qin, thanks for continuous effort to improve your document, and clear my DISCUSS.
Regards, Benoit

2013-03-22 01:48 Benoit Claise

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Benoit Claise has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-03-21 19:28 Wenson Wu

New revision available

2013-03-07 08:07 Robert Sparks

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Robert Sparks has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-03-07 07:58 Barry Leiba

[Ballot comment]
My DISCUSS points are nicely handled in -09; thanks very much for the work.

The "binary point" change is missing in the definition of Burst Discard Rate -- it got into the other three places. Gonzalo can put in an RFC Editor note asking to fix this, thus:

In Section 3.2.2, please make the following change:

OLD
Burst Discard Rate: 16 bits

The fraction of packets discarded during bursts since the
beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the
binary point at the left edge of the field.

NEW
Burst Discard Rate: 16 bits

The fraction of packets discarded during bursts since the
beginning of reception, expressed as a fixed point number with the
binary point immediately after the left-most bit.

2013-03-07 07:58 Barry Leiba

[Ballot Position Update] Position for Barry Leiba has been changed to No Objection from Discuss

2013-03-07 07:01 Ralph Droms

[Ballot comment]
The text in section 3.1.2 describing the representation of loss rates
and in section 3.2.2 describing the representation of discard rates
now appears to be OK.

I trust the differences between these representations and the 8-bit
representations of similar rates in RFC 3611 will not be problematic
or confusing for implementors.

Viewing the last 20 entries. Show full log.