IP over IEEE 802.16 Problem Statement and Goals
RFC 5154

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-12-20)
No email
send info
These comments are based on the OPS-DIR review by Bert Wijnen. 

I think document is in good shape. I have some minor comments/nits/

Detailed comments/nits

1. Pls expand acronyms when used for the first time. For example, 3rd para in section 1 uses BS and SS. I think (but am not sure) BS means Base Station, but SS?? Anyway pls expand. (Note: I see that you do expand in the Terminology Section. Still I think it would be good to also expand when used for the bvery first time in the doc).

2. 3rd para sect 1:
   (Ethernet CS) of Packet CS is within the current 16ng WG scope.
I think I would s/16ng WG/IETF 16ng WG/
The reason is that you also speak about non-IETF WGs, and so it is probably best to be specific for all/anyt WG you list.

3. 4th para in sect1:
   except into individual addresses as specified from [RFC4903].
For my feeling of English, I would: s/from [RFC4903]/in [RFC4903]/
 
4. In 3rd para on page 8 I see:

   multicast and broadcast connection for IP packet transfer.  There
   needs mechanisms like IEEE 802.1D to realize multicast and broadcast
   for Ethernet CS.  Moreover, the frequent IP multicast and broadcast
   signaling within the IP subnet like Ethernet needs to be avoided not
   to wake up sleep/idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs.

s/There needs mechanisms/There need to be mechanisms/ ??
s/sleep/sleeping/ ??

5. Sect 4.3 end of 1st para:
   the problem of waking up the sleep/idle [IEEE802.16e] SSs.
s/sleep/sleeping/ ??

6. In the acknowledgement section I see:
 
   The authors would like to express special thank to David Johnston for
   amending the section 4, "Overview of the IEEE 802.16-2006 MAC layer"

while in the (Informative References) I see:

   [IEEE802.16]
              IEEE Std 802.16-2004, "IEEE Standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks, Part 16: Air Interface for
              Fixed Broadband Wireless Access Systems", October 2004.

   [IEEE802.16e]
              IEEE Std 802.16e, "IEEE standard for Local and
              metropolitan area networks, Part 16:Air Interface for
              fixed and Mobile broadband wireless access systems",
              October 2005.

So the overview seems to discuss a newer version of the IEEE 802.16 specs than the ones pointed to in the references. Is there a good reason for that?
In fact, I do see that section 4 is NOT an overview of 802.16. Instead, section 3 seems to be an overview of 802.16-2004. SO is that what the acknowledgement is (should be) for?

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info