S/MIME Capabilities for Public Key Definitions
draft-ietf-pkix-pubkey-caps-07
Yes
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -04)
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-25 for -05)
Unknown
I am balloting No Objection on the assumption that the Security ADs are on top of this work. I do have a few nits I noticed along the way. --- Abstract s/define/defined/ --- Please expand acronyms not marked with an asterisk in http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc-style-guide/abbrev.expansion.txt --- Section 1 OLD but we did not currently have any way of doing so at the current time. NEW but we did not have any way of doing so. END --- Section 1 s/structure need/structure needs/
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-24 for -05)
Unknown
[Update: the -05 version addresses all my substantive comments.]
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-05-17)
Unknown
Please reword the last sentence of the Abstract. It says: > > An example of where this is used is with the OCSP Agility draft. > Can this be worded in a way that points to an RFC? If not, can it be worded in a way that does not use "draft"? Section 2.1 says: > > RSAKeySize ::= INTEGER (1024 | 2048 | 3072 | 7680 | 15360 | > 4096 | 8192, ...) > The integer values appear in a surprising order. While this will not impact code or interoperability, why not put them in ascending order? Should the capabilities in section 3.1 provide an optional way to specify sizes of P, Q, and G that are supported? Similarly, should the capabilities in section 3.2 provide an optional way to specify sizes of P and G that are supported? In Section 4.1 and 4.2 and 4.3, I suggest a list of named curves instead of the very rich structure that is currently specified. Several other documents have taken this approach. Any popular curve can be assigned an object identifier to name it. In addition to my comments above, please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Mary Barnes on 23-Apr-2012. The review can be found here: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/gen-art/current/msg07383.html
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2012-04-24 for -05)
Unknown
- I thought S/MIME capabilities were to allow a sender to know what a receiver wanted/could handle, this says it the other way around. - 1 s/need to be/needs to be/ in last para before 1.1
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -05)
Unknown