A Registry for SMTP Enhanced Mail System Status Codes
RFC 5248
Yes
(Chris Newman)
No Objection
Lars Eggert
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Pasi Eronen)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert
No Objection
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-04-23)
Unknown
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?
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown