Multiple-Recipient MESSAGE Requests in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
draft-ietf-sip-uri-list-message-03
Yes
(Cullen Jennings)
No Objection
(Dan Romascanu)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-06-17)
Unknown
COMMENTS 1. Page 10, grammar nit: please fix the sentence that reads Failing to copy the From header field of the sender would prevent the recipient to get a hint of the sender's identity. Along with the grammar fix, I'd like a stronger term than "hint". How about Failure to copy the From header field of the sender results in unacceptable security and privacy failures. Still vague but maybe there's something better. 2. The requirement related to CSeq should reference RFC3261? 3. The VIA header field that the URI-list service adds should distinguish what it did from pure forwarding. Is there room in SIP Via headers to indicate the function that was performed?
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown