RObust Header Compression (ROHC): Corrections and Clarifications to RFC 3095
RFC 4815

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.

Magnus Westerlund Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Brian Carpenter) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-15)
No email
send info
It is probably too late to fix, but I do not feel that the path taken by the WG to issue a 30 page RFC updating RFC 3095, instead of issuing a revision of 3095 is friendly for the people reading and implementing this technology. I hardly can see how future implementers of the protocol can work on implementations and deployments when they need to look at a core document that has such a consistent update as a reference.

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Comment (2006-11-15)
No email
send info
Documents such as these beg the question as to whether they stand in the way of documents advancing from PS to DS, and whether folks are aware that RFC Errata can be used to fix small errors.