Dynamic Prefix Allocation for Network Mobility for Mobile IPv4 (NEMOv4)
draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic-06
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-03-08)
Unknown
I've cleared my Discuss. Editorial nit: "Network Acknowledgement Extension" should be capitalized in section 3.1
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-30)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Vijay Gurbani on 28-Oct-2011 includes two suggestions for improved clarity. Please consider them. S3.1: "According to this specification ...", I am not sure what "this" refers to. Does it refer to draft-ietf-mip4-nemov4-dynamic or does it, instead, refer to rfc5177 (which is the topic of discussion in the previous paragraph from where the above is quoted)? S3.2, third paragraph: s/a prefix it MUST/a prefix, it MUST/
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-10-31)
Unknown
I had the same question as Ralph did about whether this draft updates RFC 5177 (glad he beat me to the discuss).
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown