Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 3G CDMA Networks
draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-07
Yes
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-27)
Unknown
The title and abstract of the document include non-expanded acronyms.
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-03-26)
Unknown
The second use of MAY (as a MAY not) in 5.2 (b) is inconsistent with my reading of RFC 2119 and besides, it seems ambiguous to me: (b) The proxy router advertisement MAY be sent to the MN, but the prefix of the NAR MAY not be included. Is it optional, as in don't count on the prefix being included, or is it not permitted? I suggest rewriting the second clause to describe when the prefix of the NAR is (or is not) included.