Skip to main content

vCard Format Extensions: Representing vCard Extensions Defined by the Open Mobile Alliance (OMA) Converged Address Book (CAB) Group
RFC 6715

Yes

(Pete Resnick)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)

Recuse

(Barry Leiba)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 02 and is now closed.

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -02)

                            

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -02)

                            

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-18)
  In the Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 8-Jun-2012, it was pointed
  out that a reference two RFC 2119 is needed since there is one MUST.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2012-06-18)
- The INDEX parameter in 3.1 seems different from the others. I
wondered if it really caused this to update 6530, since presumably it
could make sense with any multi-valued thing? I assume the argument
that it doesn't is that 6530 implementations will ignore it if they
don't also support this spec, and I'm ok with that, but just wanted to
check.

- Is LEVEL (3.2) only supposed to be used with hobby, etc.? If so, then
maybe you need some 2119 language for that? If not, then maybe say
that. I could imagine LEVEL being used e.g. with ROLE or TITLE or 
maybe even SOUND (at a stretch:-).

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse (for -02)