Access Network Identifier (ANI) Option for Proxy Mobile IPv6
RFC 6757

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

(Brian Haberman) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-07-19 for -11)
No email
send info
I've cleared.

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-23 for -10)
No email
send info
This is a not-quite-Discuss Comment

I think a number of references listed as Informative need to be moved
to Normative. Specifically:

RFC 3629
RFC 1035
RFC 6275

I am in two mindsabout RFC2460.

Happy to discuss why/whether this would be appropriate, but it looks 
like the uses are explicit "do encode this thing you need to read this 
reference" type of statements.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2012-05-16 for -10)
No email
send info
IANA Considerations rant:

   o  Action-1: This specification defines a new Mobility Header option,
      the Access Network Identifier.  This mobility option is described
      in Section 3.  The Type value for this option needs to be assigned
      from the same numbering space as allocated for the other mobility
      options, as defined in [RFC6275].

I noticed the same problem that confused IANA, and was going to kick in a DISCUSS to get it fixed: the registry is called "Mobility Options", and referring to it as a "Mobility Header option" confused it with the "Mobility Header Types" registry.  No need for the DISCUSS, though, because the author noticed the error in Pearl's proposed IANA actions, and sorted it out by email.

So this comment will just serve to beat people up about this, and to rant a bit.  You can otherwise ignore it:
Folks, it's just not that hard to go to and actually *look up* the correct name of the registry you aim to use... and then to use the *exact* name.  Please be specific and accurate; it's important.

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-08-09)
No email
send info
I assume the conclusion of the discussion you were having at IETF about the encoding of SSIDs fell out to UTF-8 instead of raw bits?

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection

Comment (2012-05-24 for -10)
No email
send info
I'm piling on with Stephen and Robert.