Protocol Extensions for Header Compression over MPLS
RFC 4901

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Cullen Jennings) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

Comment (2007-03-05)
No email
send info
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]."

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

Comment (2007-03-07)
No email
send info
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.