Sieve Notification Mechanism: mailto
draft-ietf-sieve-notify-mailto-10
Yes
(Lisa Dusseault)
No Objection
(Cullen Jennings)
(David Ward)
(Jari Arkko)
(Jon Peterson)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Russ Housley)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
Chris Newman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2008-11-17)
Unknown
Two fixes I believe would improve this document: 1. It "Updates: RFC 3834" because it changes the extension rules from IETF consensus to Specification Required. 2. The term "URI Header" is not defined anywhere. I assume it means "Header field name and value extracted from the mailto URI," but it might be a good idea to include that (or a similar) definition in this specification. Lisa: Who are you recommending as the expert reviewer for the new auto-submitted extension registry this creates?
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-03)
Unknown
The current IESG Write-up is replicating the whole PROTO shepherd write-up.
David Ward Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-02)
Unknown
idnits complains about two instances of "MAY NOT", which isn't a valid RFC2119 term. I believe both can be replaced by MUST NOT.
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pasi Eronen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-01)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2008-12-02)
Unknown
The message composition guidelines in section 2.7 are very weak. As far as I can tell, the only field that is required to be included is the "Auto-Submitted: auto-notified" header field. Everything else is a SHOULD. Is that really the wg's intention?