A Common Schema for Internet Registry Information Service Transfer Protocols
RFC 4991

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -)
No email
send info

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-24)
No email
send info
Informative Reference list:

[8]   Newton, A. and M. Sanz, "Internet Registry Information
         Service", RFC 3891, January 2004.

RFC 3891 is: The Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) Replaces Header

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2007-01-22)
No email
send info
  Section 4: s/optionalal/optional/

  Section 10 should all be one subsection.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain (2007-01-22 for -)
No email
send info
I don't think this specification provides enough detail that it
guarantees interoperable implementations.  There is not sufficient
mandatory behavior.  I also disagree that this spec represents an
appropriate decomposition of the problem space.  It seems based on
textual reuse rather than some abstraction in the problem domain.