The Use of the SIPS URI Scheme in the Session Initiation Protocol (SIP)
RFC 5630

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Cullen Jennings) Yes

(Jon Peterson) Yes

Magnus Westerlund Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2008-11-05 for -)
No email
send info
** Obsolete normative reference: RFC 4346 (Obsoleted by RFC 5246)

Section 3.2., paragraph 1:
>    request was delivered securily on each hop, while in fact, in was
  Nit: s/securily/securely/

Section 5.1.1., paragraph 6:
>    To emphasise what is already defined in [RFC3261], UAs MUST NOT use
  Nit: s/emphasise/emphasize/ (also elsewhere)

Section 5.4., paragraph 4:
>    used inconsistenty (e.g,, the Request-URI is a SIPS URI, but the
  Nit: s/inconsistenty/inconsistently/

Section 6.3., paragraph 2:
>    Edge Proxy B. Note that Registar/Authoritative Proxy B preserved the
  Nit: s/Registar/Registrar/ (also elsewhere)

(Pasi Eronen) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Chris Newman) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

Comment (2008-11-06)
No email
send info
section 3.2

s/securily/securely/

in several places:

s/inconsistenty/inconsistently/

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection