Overview of Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
(David Harrington) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thank you for addressing my Discuss issues and Comments. Note that the revised text in Section 5 (for which, thanks) is missing blank lines between the paragraphs.
Stephen Farrell No Objection
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 28-Feb-2012 included some editorial suggestions that deserve consideration (1) Section 220.127.116.11 says: > > ... full-functionality option in Section 18.104.22.168. > I think you meant "Section 22.214.171.124". One other place in this paragraph needs this correction too. (2) Section 4.2 says: > > The problem with 3-in-1 encoding is that the 10-codepoint does > not survive decapsulation with the tunneling options in > Section 126.96.36.199 - 188.8.131.52. > Again, you meant 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11