ENUM Validation Architecture
draft-ietf-enum-validation-arch-04
Yes
(Jon Peterson)
No Objection
(Brian Carpenter)
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Kessens)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Ross Callon)
(Sam Hartman)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-09-10)
Unknown
What is the reason for not using RFC2119 keywords notation, especially in Section 2?
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2006-09-12)
Unknown
This phrase: The Registry is a natural monopoly (for the respective zone(s) it manages). might be perhaps better phrased as "There must always be a single authoratitive registry for a specific zone". As you'll see by reference to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly there are multiple meanings of "natural monopoly" which might be inferred here. They do not all relate to the need to maintain an authoritative registry.