URI Scheme for the Session Traversal Utilities for NAT (STUN) Protocol
RFC 7064
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) Yes
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
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
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
spencer: you should sit on it till we discuss it... ;)
(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection, Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
[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
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Thanks for handling my discuss and comments.
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Lemon; former steering group member) No Objection