Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS
RFC 4901
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
One author response to Spencer Dawkins' Gen-ART review remains open. This would be an improvement: If you prefer I could replace the phrasing "These sub-options do not occur together" with the following text: "These sub-options MUST NOT occur together, if they do (e.g., if misconfigured) a decompressor MUST reject this option and send an explicit error message to the compressor [RFC3544]."
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
I think one should consider switching the reference to RFC 3095 to that of the approved document: draft-ietf-rohc-rfc3095bis-framework Nits: Section 2: compressed Real Time Protocol (cRTP) Should be: compressed Real-time Transport Protocol (cRTP) Enhanced Compressed Real Time Porotocol (ECRTP) Should be: Enhanced Compressed Real-time Transport Protocol (ECRTP) Section 2: Label Switching Router (LSR): an MPLS node which is capable of forwarding native L3 packets label stack an ordered set of labels It seems another definition for "Label stack" has been sucked into this definition.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection