RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Corrections and Clarifications to RFC 3095
RFC 4815
Yes
(Magnus Westerlund)
No Objection
(Bill Fenner)
(Brian Carpenter)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Ted Hardie)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-15)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-11-15)
Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown