Overview of Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding
draft-ietf-pcn-encoding-comparison-09

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 3.3.3.3 says:
  >
  > ... full-functionality option in Section 3.3.2.2.
  >
  I think you meant "Section 3.3.3.2".  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 3.3.2.1 - 3.3.2.3.
  >
  Again, you meant 3.3.3.1 - 3.3.3.3

( Peter Saint-Andre ) No Objection

( Robert Sparks ) No Objection