Skip to main content

Mobile IPv6 Fast Handovers for 3G CDMA Networks
draft-ietf-mipshop-3gfh-07

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Chris Newman)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-03-27)
The title and abstract of the document include non-expanded acronyms.

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-03-26)
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.