Ethernet Traffic Parameters
draft-ietf-ccamp-ethernet-traffic-parameters-10
Yes
(Adrian Farrel)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-07)
Unknown
In section 8, the first paragraphs is "This document introduces no new security considerations to either [RFC3473]." The word "either" implies there was another RFC listed. Should "either" be removed from the sentence or should another RFC be added?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-04-07)
Unknown
In a number of cases the following text is used to describe the assignment status of code points "Values 256 through 65535 are not to be assigned at this time." It would be useful to forward reference the IANA section which actually specifies this as "Standards Action" Alternatively the authors could omit all the policy statements from the body text (which duplicates the IANA section) and put the policy in one place (the IANA section).
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown