Location-to-Service Translation (LoST) Service List Boundary Extension
RFC 6197
Yes
(Robert Sparks)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-01-05)
Unknown
Sec 3.3: r/is optional and/is OPTIONAL and
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-01-06)
Unknown
My apologies before climbing onto the editorial soapbox, but... This document *defines* a Service List Boundary extension, not *proposes* a Service List Boundary. Perhaps the -00 draft was a proposal, but this one is a technical specification. I suggest a minor edit in the Abstract to clarify the document scope.