Skip to main content

vCard Format Extensions: Representing vCard Extensions Defined by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB) Group
draft-ietf-vcarddav-oma-cab-extensions-03

Yes

(Pete Resnick)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Recuse

(Barry Leiba)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

Pete Resnick Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -02) Unknown

                            
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -02) Unknown

                            
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-06-18) Unknown
  In the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 8-Jun-2012, it was pointed
  out that a reference two RFC 2119 is needed since there is one MUST.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2012-06-18) Unknown
- The INDEX parameter in 3.1 seems different from the others. I
wondered if it really caused this to update 6530, since presumably it
could make sense with any multi-valued thing? I assume the argument
that it doesn't is that 6530 implementations will ignore it if they
don't also support this spec, and I'm ok with that, but just wanted to
check.

- Is LEVEL (3.2) only supposed to be used with hobby, etc.? If so, then
maybe you need some 2119 language for that? If not, then maybe say
that. I could imagine LEVEL being used e.g. with ROLE or TITLE or 
maybe even SOUND (at a stretch:-).
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse (for -02) Unknown