IPv6 over Low-Power Wireless Personal Area Network (6LoWPAN) Paging Dispatch
draft-ietf-6lo-paging-dispatch-05
Yes
(Alvaro Retana)
(Suresh Krishnan)
No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Stephen Farrell)
(Terry Manderson)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-09-27 for -04)
Unknown
I found this text A Page (say Page N) is said to be active once the Page N Paging Dispatch is parsed, and as long as no other Paging Dispatch is parsed. somewhat unclear. Is it saying A Page (say Page N) is said to be active once the Page N Paging Dispatch is parsed, and remains active until another Paging Dispatch is parsed. ? I wasn't quite sure what "so far" meant in this text (and temporal references in RFCs that live forever are somewhat confusing, anyway). As a result, there is no need so far for restoring the Page 0 parsing context after a context was switched to Page 1, so the value for the Page 0 Paging Dispatch of 11110000 may not actually occur in those packets that adhere to 6LoWPAN specifications available at the time of writing this specification. Would this be just as correct with "so far" deleted, or am I not understanding the point you're making? Thanks for explaining why you're choosing "Specification Required" as your IANA policy.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Terry Manderson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown