Next-Generation Pan-European eCall
RFC 8147

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 22 and is now closed.

Ben Campbell Yes

Alissa Cooper (was Discuss, Yes) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Benoit Claise) No Objection

Spencer Dawkins No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2017-01-17 for -23)
Minor comments:
- sec 9.1.1.1: Is there a case where 'received' could be not 'true'. I mean how can you acknowledge something that you didn't receive?
- I find the wording used saying "This document registers .." (in the whole document) not fully approrpiate because the main purpose of this doc is the spcification of the usage of these registrations. I would propose the following, e.g.
OLD
"This document registers "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls."
NEW
"This document specifies "urn:service:test.sos.ecall" for eCall test calls and registers it in section X."

Terry Manderson No Objection

Alexey Melnikov (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2017-01-16 for -23)
Thank you for quick handling of my DISCUSS points.

One nit: in 14.1:

Contact: Apps Area Working Group (apps-discuss@ietf.org)

This should probably be art@ietf.org

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Alvaro Retana No Objection