Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
RFC 7601

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

Barry Leiba Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-14 for -09)
No email
send info
Edit: All of my comments have been addressed via email. The resolution is that I was in the rough on all points; no change needed.


-- 2.6, 2nd paragraph:

Why might one choose _not_ to include version tokens?

-- 2.7.7, first paragraph, last sentence:

I’m not sure how such a “preference” should be applied for IANA stuff

-- 4, last sentence:

Known not to authenticate, or not known to authenticate?

-- 4.1, 2nd paragraph

is it reasonable for users to be expected to know which services are used in their ADMDs?

-- 5, last paragraph:

How do you imply a version?

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Stephen Farrell) No Objection

Comment (2015-05-14 for -09)
No email
send info
Based on the diff [1] from 7001, I've no objection. Thanks for
ensuring that that diff was useful for this review. (Or else
I'm glad we were lucky - it really speeds things up for me:-)

[1] https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=rfc7001&url2=draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-09

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection