Web Linking
RFC 5988
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert (was Discuss) No Objection
[TBD]@ietf.org and [TBD-2]@ietf.org mailing lists need to be created and an RFC Editor Note needs to ask them to substitute the final names.
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
I am now satisfied that the "hub" relation will be more clearly defined in the next version of the PubsubHubbub specification, although I agree that the pointer from the registry should be to the specification itself, not the general website for the project.
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection
The document has a novel approach to expert review, with expiration of a timer failing over to the IESG. Within at most 14 days of the request, the Designated Expert(s) will either approve or deny the registration request, communicating this decision to the review list. Denials should include an explanation and, if applicable, suggestions as to how to make the request successful. Registration requests that are undetermined for a period longer than 21 days can be brought to the IESG's attention (using the iesg@iesg.org mailing list) for resolution. Vanilla expert review would be better...