Extension to Sockets API for Mobile IPv6
draft-ietf-mip6-mipext-advapi-07
Yes
(Margaret Cullen)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Mark Townsley)
(Sam Hartman)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-18)
Unknown
citation/reference problems: !! Missing citation for Informative reference: P020 L028: [3] Deering, S., Hinden, R., "Internet Protocol, Version 6 !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC-3493] P004 L038: body, such as has been done with the Basic API [RFC-3493]. !! Missing Reference for citation: [RFC3245] P004 L040: [RFC3245], such standardization would make sense only if
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-01-12)
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-18)
Unknown
From Gen-ART review by Mark Allman:
+ Section 1: "mainly target user-level" --> "mainly targets
user-level"
+ Section 1: While the document is fine without specifying error
handling it might be nice to add a note that this is not good
practice.
+ Section 1: "deployed among implementations, it" --> "deployed, it"
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-17)
Unknown
In section 7: s/man in the middle/man-in-the-middle/ Reference [1] contains two dates. I believe the second one should be deleted. Section 11 should be deleted prior to publication.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-17)
Unknown
The document says: Behavior of legacy IPv6 socket applications: Applications, whether or not they implement this specification, that use the Advanced API mechanisms to receive Destination options or Routing headers, need to ignore or otherwise properly handle the Home Address destination option and the type 2 routing headers according to this API specifications. I found this pretty hard to parse. I would suggest re-phrasing it. Does "Legacy applications using the Advanced API mechanisms to receive Destination options or Routing headers will ignore the Home Address destination option and the type 2 routing headers specified here." capture the intent?