Skip to main content

URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol
RFC 7064

Yes

(Gonzalo Camarillo)

No Objection

(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Sean Turner)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Ted Lemon)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -07)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes

Yes (2013-09-25 for -07)
My apologies for being completely confused. 

The text I was concerned about is not in this draft at all. I'm not quite sure why I was looking at RFC 5389 in the first place.

I'm clearing - and I'm a yes - and then slinking off to file an errata against RFC 5389.

Thanks for Benoit for letting me know that I REALLY need a vision test.

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-25 for -07)
I agree with Pete's comments about the ABNF, and share his dismay that these documents copy significant bits of standard ABNF productions from the URI document.  I think that's a Bad Idea.

Comment for the document shepherd: Thanks for a good, useful writeup!

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-24 for -07)
spencer:

you should sit on it till we discuss it... ;)

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-28)
[3.1: ABNF changed to reference 3986]

3.2: I suggest changing "MUST be" to "is" in both cases. The MUSTs are gratuitous. Then get rid of the reference to 2119. It's unnecessary.

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (2013-09-27)
Thanks for handling my discuss and comments.

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)

                            

(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -07)