Skip to main content

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

Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)

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

Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -07) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
(was Discuss) Yes
Yes (2013-09-25 for -07) Unknown
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.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-25 for -07) Unknown
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!
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-24 for -07) Unknown
spencer:

you should sit on it till we discuss it... ;)
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-28) Unknown
[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.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss) No Objection
No Objection (2013-09-27) Unknown
Thanks for handling my discuss and comments.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown

                            
Ted Lemon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -07) Unknown