Ethernet Traffic Parameters
RFC 6003

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

(Adrian Farrel) Yes

(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-07)
No email
send info
In a number of cases the following text is used to describe the assignment status of code points "Values 256 through 65535 are not to be assigned at this time." It would be useful to forward reference the IANA section which actually specifies this as "Standards Action"

Alternatively the authors could omit all the policy statements from the body text (which duplicates the IANA section) and put the policy in one place (the IANA section).

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2010-04-07)
No email
send info
In section 8, the first paragraphs is "This document introduces no new security considerations to either [RFC3473]."  The word "either" implies there was another RFC listed.  Should "either" be removed from the sentence or should another RFC be added?