RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Corrections and Clarifications to RFC 3095
RFC 4815
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
It is probably too late to fix, but I do not feel that the path taken by the WG to issue a 30 page RFC updating RFC 3095, instead of issuing a revision of 3095 is friendly for the people reading and implementing this technology. I hardly can see how future implementers of the protocol can work on implementations and deployments when they need to look at a core document that has such a consistent update as a reference.
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
Documents such as these beg the question as to whether they stand in the way of documents advancing from PS to DS, and whether folks are aware that RFC Errata can be used to fix small errors.
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection