Skip to main content

Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
RFC 7601

Yes

(Barry Leiba)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Terry Manderson)

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

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -08)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-14 for -09)
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?

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-14 for -09)
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

(Terry Manderson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -08)