RFC 3627 to Historic Status
RFC 6547

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Ron Bonica) Yes

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Wesley Eddy) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2012-01-28)
No email
send info
Has there actually been confusion by people referring to and using 3627? This document says that it is moving 3627 to Historic to avoid such confusion, but never actually said that such confusions occurred. If they have occurred, it would be useful to say that. If they haven't occurred, I wonder why this document was necessary. (Note: Neither the shepherding writeup nor the IESG writeup were helpful in this regard as neither actually mentioned why the WG thought this was a useful document. It only had the standard one-liner saying, "there was consensus", which was not useful info.)

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Peter Saint-Andre) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection