IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
Jari tells me that the Erratum has now been rejected based on WG consensus. I will clear my Discuss.
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Comment (2010-03-08 for -)
The Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia on 2010-03-08 raised a few editorial issues. Please consider them. I would really like to see the comments about Appendix G addressed, so it is repeated here for convenience: - The structure of Appendix G is a bit confusing. Section G.1 lists the changes made since RFC 3344. Sections G.2 and G.3 list the Major and Minor Changes, respectively, but it is not clear to me if these are changes since RFC 3344 or they include earlier changes as well. To add more confusion, Section G4 lists the changes since RFC 3344, but wasn't this what Section G.1 is all about?
(Tim Polk) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu) No Objection
(Robert Sparks) No Objection
(Sean Turner) No Objection
Two comments: 1) Sec 1.6: It's a little ODD that there's a requirement in the terminology section (see SPI paragraph). Can this be moved to somewhere else in the document? 2) Sec 1.9: r/it is recommended that new Mobile IP extensions follow one of the two new extension/it is RECOMMENDED that new Mobile IP extensions follow one of the two new extension ?