RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Profiles for User Datagram Protocol (UDP) Lite
RFC 4019
Yes
(Allison Mankin)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Russ Housley)
(Thomas Narten)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-09-02)
Unknown
Reviewed by Brian Carpenter, Gen-ART He observed the same problem as others; in his words: It was kind of hard to review since its primary reference (to UDP-Lite) is wrongly referenced in the text - it's not [1] but [4], and I don't know where to look for RFCUUUU which is the citation behind [4]. OK, a little research tells me they are referring to RFC 3828.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-08-30)
Unknown
Do we really want to remove the text from the IANA Considerations section as described in the document? Sometimes that kind of explanation is helpful to have around in the future.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-08-30)
Unknown
RFC 3828 should appear as a normative reference. The reference given in paragraph 3 of Section 1 is to 2119 instead, which is wrong. (this should probably be in an RFC Editor's note.)
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-08-31)
Unknown
In Section 5.6, the draft says: Upon receiving the Mode parameter set to '0', the decompressor MUST stay in its current mode of operation and SHOULD refrain from sending further mode transition requests for the declined mode for a certain amount of time. How is "certain amount of time" determined? If the advice is in some other document, a pointer would be valuable. If it is implementation dependent, then some minimum seems required (as otherwise the SHOULD refrain is meaningless--an implementation could refrain a clock cycle and be compliant).
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown