The "about" URI Scheme
draft-ietf-appsawg-about-uri-scheme-07
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Pete Resnick)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
Yes
Yes
(for -06)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-03 for -05)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document as an Informaitonal RFC. Following on from the transition to Informational (for which, thanks), you might consider s/specifies/describes/ (But this is a *very* unimportant comment!)
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-05-16 for -04)
Unknown
Just a non-blocking comment that can be resolved easily... The Acknowledgments section appears to be incomplete. The first sentence looks fragmented, maybe an editing mistake?
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-04 for -06)
Unknown
no objection if this draft is really going for informational (as listed in the draft) and not as Standards Track as listed in the datatracker.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -06)
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-05 for -06)
Unknown
I have no objection to the publication of this document as an Informational RFC.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-06-04 for -06)
Unknown
The FCFS registration scheme could lead to anyone registering an about-token that's in current use in a browser. Why isn't expert review more suitable here to protect against such abuse? For example, nothing here prevents me from registering about:config, which is used by >1 browser. I don't get why that is not a problem. (This is almost a discuss btw, I'd really like to see a response if possible before the telechat.) Why does about-token "correspond" to hier-part from 3986? What would "about://example.com/foo/bar" mean? I'd have thought that omitting the authority would be correct for this scheme - why am I wrong?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown