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
Comment (2012-03-19 for -09)
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
Comment (2012-03-01 for -09)
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 28-Feb-2012 included some editorial suggestions that deserve consideration (1) Section 22.214.171.124 says: > > ... full-functionality option in Section 126.96.36.199. > I think you meant "Section 188.8.131.52". 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 184.108.40.206 - 220.127.116.11. > Again, you meant 18.104.22.168 - 22.214.171.124