IETF conflict review for draft-saintandre-jabberid
conflict-review-saintandre-jabberid-00
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Richard Barnes)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-02-18)
The security considerations could mention that including this might help bind the email From and JID for surveillance purposes as well as for spam. I'd argue that the 2nd "ought" is too weak: s/ought/need to/ would be better IMO. (And in case I got the count wrong, I mean the one where you say a UA "ought" allow the user to stop sending this.)
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()