A Document Format for Requesting Consent
RFC 5361

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

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Abstain) No Objection

No Objection (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.

(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was No Record, Discuss) No Objection

No Objection (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 3.1.2.2 comes close, where the phrase "considered a match" is used.

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info