Internationalized Delivery Status and Disposition Notifications
RFC 5337
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
ABNF compiles. But only after changing indents in Section 4 to be the same as those in Section 3 (two vs. three spaces). No time to check whether this is a real problem or something that Bill's parser just does...
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
I think the ABNF could be improved and be made easier to verify. I know there are a lot of baggage in the ABNF usage in RFC 2821 and RFC 2822. However, I think the following improvement could be done: - Put in the equivalent of import clause for different rules. What I mean is that for a rule defined in another document, like "atext" xtext = <xtext is defined in [RFC3461]> That way a reader know from where it is comming. That is especially important when it comes to extension clauses, i.e. =/ constructions. It will also not show up as undefined in parsing. Thus allowing one to easier verify the real undefines from the ones that are imported from other documents.
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Recuse