Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
RFC 7601
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Alvaro Retana No Objection
(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) Yes
(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection
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
(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Joel Jaeggli; former steering group member) No Objection
(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) No Objection
(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
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