A Document Format for Requesting Consent
RFC 5361

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Jon Peterson) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Chris Newman) (was Discuss, Abstain) No Objection

Comment (2008-08-01)
No email
send info
Author plans to update document to explain meaning of schema and proposed
text showed understanding of the issues, so I'm clearing my discuss.

(Tim Polk) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2008-03-07)
No email
send info
In 3.1.3 it is stated that "The target conditions can contain."  Why not use MAY, MUST or SHOULD?

[The Secdir review also suggests that clarity could be achieved by following the 4745 format more closely.  Here is the excerpt:]

Perhaps the intent is that 4745 rules apply and the intent is to state when each condition evaluates to TRUE.  If that is the case, perhaps that language can be used in all evaluations to make that clear.

I looked up 4745 and they use the following format:

"The 'id' attribute contains an identity that MUST first be expressed
   as a URI. "

Perhaps the rules in the current document can use the same template. This comment
applies to all the conditions in 3.1.

The language in comes close, where the phrase "considered a match" is used.

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) Abstain