Skip to main content

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)

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
Couple of nits about references (could be fixed with an RFC Editor
note): [IANA] should be normative, and should point to RFC 5226. 
[RFC2821] and [RFC2822] have been obsoleted by 5321 and 5322.
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?