The RObust Header Compression (ROHC) Framework
draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework-04
Yes
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Brian Carpenter)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Sam Hartman)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2006-12-11)
Unknown
Section 3., paragraph 0: > 3. Background (Informative) Aren't sections 1 and 2 informative also? Instead of including a tag in the section headings, it may be better to have a statement in the introduction along the lines of "Section 5 is the only normative section, all others are informative" and repeat it at the beginning of section 5. Section 8, paragraph 3: > Profile Identifier Usage Reference > ------------------ ---------------------- --------- > 0x0000 ROHC uncompressed RFC 3095 "ROHC uncompressed" is also included in this document - should the table be adjusted accordingly?
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-12-14)
Unknown
The document does not specify in the header if it obsoletes or updates RFC3095. Although the fact that the document 'replaces the framework specification of RFC 3095' is mentioned twice, there is no explicit mention if the content is identical with the one in RFC3095, and what sections in RFC3095 are being replaced. I believe that some text detaiing the relationship with RFC3095 would be useful for future users of the ROHC standards.
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-12-12)
Unknown
Do we need a license in the code in Appendix A? I'd recommend one so that people know if they can adapt the code, use parts of it, etc. Shouldn't the reference to profile 0x0000 in section 8. be to "this RFC" rather than to RFC3095? thx,
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown