Skip to main content

Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto
RFC 5436

Yes

(Lisa Dusseault)

No Objection

(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-12-02)
idnits complains about two instances of "MAY NOT", which isn't a valid RFC2119 term. I believe both can be replaced by MUST NOT.

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2008-11-17)
Two fixes I believe would improve this document:

1. It "Updates: RFC 3834" because it changes the extension rules from
   IETF consensus to Specification Required.

2. The term "URI Header" is not defined anywhere.  I assume it means
   "Header field name and value extracted from the mailto URI," but it
   might be a good idea to include that (or a similar) definition in
   this specification.

Lisa: Who are you recommending as the expert reviewer for the new
      auto-submitted extension registry this creates?

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()

                            

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-12-03)
The current IESG Write-up is replicating the whole PROTO shepherd write-up.

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-12-01)
Couple of nits about references (could be fixed with an RFC Editor
note): [IANA] should be normative, and should point to RFC 5226. 
[RFC2821] and [RFC2822] have been obsoleted by 5321 and 5322.

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2008-12-02)
The message composition guidelines in section 2.7 are very weak.  As far as I can tell, the only field that is required to be included is the "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" header field.  Everything else is a SHOULD.  Is that really the wg's intention?