The JSON Meta Application Protocol (JMAP)
draft-ietf-jmap-core-17
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
No Objection
(Alvaro Retana)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Ignas Bagdonas)
(Martin Vigoureux)
(Spencer Dawkins)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Warren Kumari
No Objection
Comment
(2019-02-20 for -14)
Not sent
"Trusting AD"
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -14)
Unknown
Adam Roach Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-01 for -15)
Sent
Thanks for addressing my discuss and comment points.
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-04 for -15)
Sent
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS questions. Original COMMENT is below. = Section 1.1 = Please use the RFC 8174 boilerplate instead of the RFC 2119 boilerplate. = Section 2= s/To avoid conflict, the identifiers for these MUST be a URL with a domain owned by the vendor./To avoid conflict, an identifier for a vendor-specific extension MUST be a URL with a domain owned by the vendor./ = Section 8 = Depending on the outcome of the discussion related to the DISCUSS point above, I think it would be appropriate to describe or even normatively require client ID construction such that client IDs are opaque and can change over time at the client's choosing.
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-05 for -15)
Sent
Thank you for addressing my comments on version 14.
Benjamin Kaduk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-08 for -16)
Sent for earlier
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS (and COMMENT!) points!
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Eric Rescorla Former IESG member
(was No Record, Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-06 for -15)
Sent for earlier
Thank you for addressing my DISCUSS
Ignas Bagdonas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Not sent
Martin Vigoureux Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -15)
Not sent
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
(was Discuss, No Objection)
No Objection
No Objection
(2019-03-23)
Sent
Thanks for considering my discuss! Thanks for addressing the TSV-ART comments (and thanks to Allison for the review)! ---------------------------- Old comment (for the record): ---------------------------- One question regarding sec 9.4.1.: How long should IANA wait for comments before the registration is performed?
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -14)
Not sent