A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
RFC 5248

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

(Chris Newman) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

Comment (2008-04-23)
No email
send info
A lot of draft-hansens, draft-klensins, draft-melnikovs, etc. Documents
that are discussed on specific mailing lists around a topic. I counted
over 60% individual submission rate over WG submission rate on the APPS
area. Good documents. Necessary documents. Stuff that should be done. But
are you sure you don't need more WGs? I do a lot of individual submissions
too, but I also find that WG documents do get more review, more exposure
from the IETF community, easier to delegate work to chairs, etc. Is there
something that blocks us from having more WGs to look at these things, 
e.g., around e-mail? Are the updates too spread out to define a useful
WG for them? Or does our process of starting up a WG have a too high
bar?

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Tim Polk) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund (was Discuss) No Objection