ANSI C12.22, IEEE 1703, and MC12.22 Transport Over IP
RFC 6142
Yes
(Ralph Droms)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
Comment
(2010-07-01)
Section 3.4.1., paragraph 1: > Service, of ANSI C12.22, this specification RECOMMENDEDS that the Rephrase RECOMMENDEDS with a valid RFC2119 term ("is RECOMMENDED").
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-07-01)
I think this is an important specification and in relatively OK shape technically, and we should move it forward. A couple of comments, however: First, I agree with Lars Eggert's discuss on 63K UDP packets and fragmentation. Second, I think the document is quite hard to read. Its partially that I don't have C12.12 background and partially because of the writing style and partially because much of the big picture is missing.
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-07-01)
Support Stewart's discuss - the document would benefit greatly from more exposition.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-06-30)
Please consider the comment provided in the Gen-ART Review by
Spencer Dawkins on 2010-06-15:
http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
draft-c1222-transport-over-ip-03-dawkins.txt
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()