Skip to main content

Message Header Field for Indicating Message Authentication Status
draft-ietf-appsawg-rfc7001bis-11

Yes

(Barry Leiba)

No Objection

(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(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.

Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes (for -08) Unknown

                            
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-05-14 for -09) Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -09) Unknown

                            
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (2015-05-14 for -09) Unknown
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 IESG member
No Objection
No Objection (for -08) Unknown