Overview of Pre-Congestion Notification Encoding
RFC 6627

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

(David Harrington; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2012-03-19)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing my Discuss issues and Comments.

Note that the revised text in Section 5 (for which, thanks) is
missing blank lines between the paragraphs.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

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

No Objection (2012-03-01)
No email
send info
The Gen-ART Review by Pete McCann on 28-Feb-2012 included some
  editorial suggestions that deserve consideration

  (1) Section 3.3.3.3 says:
  >
  > ... full-functionality option in Section 3.3.2.2.
  >
  I think you meant "Section 3.3.3.2".  One other place in this
  paragraph needs this correction too.

  (2) Section 4.2 says:
  >
  > The problem with 3-in-1 encoding is that the 10-codepoint does
  > not survive decapsulation with the tunneling options in
  > Section 3.3.2.1 - 3.3.2.3.
  >
  Again, you meant 3.3.3.1 - 3.3.3.3

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -08)
No email
send info