IP Mobility Support for IPv4, Revised
RFC 5944

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

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-15)
No email
send info
Jari tells me that the Erratum has now been rejected based on WG consensus. I will clear my Discuss.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2010-03-08 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  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?

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-21)
No email
send info
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   ?

Magnus Westerlund No Objection