Communications Resource Priority for the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin) Yes
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
(Russ Housley) No Objection
Section 9 of draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10 says: > > There should not be a unique namespace for different jurisdictions. > This will greatly increase interoperability and reduce development > time, and probably reduce future confusion if there is ever a need > to map one namespace to another in an interworking function. > I find this wording misleading. I propose: > > There should be a single namespace for all jurisdictions. This will > greatly increase interoperability and reduce development time, and > probably reduce future confusion if there is ever a need to map one > namespace to another in an interworking function. Please correct the typo in section 11.4 of draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10: > > The authentication may be based on capabilities and noms, ... Please ensure that "S/MIME" is not split across line breaks.
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Jon Peterson) No Objection
(Mark Townsley) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen) No Objection
doc: draft-ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption-04.txt !! Missing citation for Normative reference: P018 L028:  Rosenberg, J., Schulzrinne, H., Camarillo, G., Johnston, A., doc: draft-ietf-sip-resource-priority-10.txt !! Missing citation for Informative reference: P034 L015: [RFC3324] Watson, M., "Short Term Requirements for Network Asserted Mmmm... 14.1 Normative References [I-D.ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption] Polk, J., "Extending the Session Initiation Protocol Reason Header for Preemption Events", draft-ietf-sipping-reason-header-for-preemption-02 (work in progress), August 2004. While rev 04 is on this ballot. Oh well.