Delay-Tolerant Networking Metadata Extension Block
RFC 6258
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) Yes
In accordance with RFC 5742, I recommend that the IESG take the following position regarding this IRTF-stream document: The IESG has concluded that there is no conflict between this document and IETF work. This recommendation has been entered in the datatracker. In addition, and outside the scope of IESG review in accordance with RFC 5742, I have the following technical comments, which the author is free to consider or not as desired: 1. The definition of the URI metadata type does not mention Internationalized Resource Identifiers (IRIs); is it envisioned that IRIs could be supported via transformation into URIs as specified in RFC 3987? 2. Section 4.1 states: Unless determined by local policy, the specific processing steps that must be performed on bundles with metadata blocks containing metadata of type URI are expected to be included as part of the URI encoding of the metadata. It is unclear to this reader (a) how the processing steps are to be encoded in the URI and (b) if such processing steps are intended to override or supplement the processing steps defined in RFC 3986 for URIs in general.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection