URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol
draft-nandakumar-rtcweb-stun-uri-08

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) Yes

Spencer Dawkins (was Discuss) Yes

Comment (2013-09-25 for -07)
No email
send info
My apologies for being completely confused. 

The text I was concerned about is not in this draft at all. I'm not quite sure why I was looking at RFC 5389 in the first place.

I'm clearing - and I'm a yes - and then slinking off to file an errata against RFC 5389.

Thanks for Benoit for letting me know that I REALLY need a vision test.

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-27)
No email
send info
Thanks for handling my discuss and comments.

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-24 for -07)
No email
send info
spencer:

you should sit on it till we discuss it... ;)

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-25 for -07)
No email
send info
I agree with Pete's comments about the ABNF, and share his dismay that these documents copy significant bits of standard ABNF productions from the URI document.  I think that's a Bad Idea.

Comment for the document shepherd: Thanks for a good, useful writeup!

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2013-09-28)
No email
send info
[3.1: ABNF changed to reference 3986]

3.2: I suggest changing "MUST be" to "is" in both cases. The MUSTs are gratuitous. Then get rid of the reference to 2119. It's unnecessary.

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection