Skip to main content

IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised
RFC 5944

Yes

(Jari Arkko)

No Objection

Lars Eggert
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert
No Objection
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes) Yes
Yes ()

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2010-04-15)
Jari tells me that the Erratum has now been rejected based on WG consensus. I will clear my Discuss.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-03-08)
  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?
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2010-04-21)
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   ?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()

                            
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection ()