Certificate Management over CMS (CMC) Updates
draft-ietf-pkix-rfc5272-bis-08
Yes
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-05)
Unknown
I have not done a detailed review of this document and will trust that the Security ADs have done. I am somewhat puzzled by... This document contains a new IANA considerations section to be added to [RFC5273] as part of this update. Section 3.2 says... Reference: [ RFC-to-be ] ...and I assume that means *this* document. So the new IANA section is as a result of 5273, but not part of it.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-08)
Unknown
1. I believe that this format of defining in one RFC updates for other 3 RFCs is quite difficult to read and follow. 2. - In section 2.5. New Section 6.20 RA Identity Proof Witness control: "Identity Proof Version 2" should be "Identity Proof Version 2 control" if I'm correct.
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-06)
Unknown
I concur with Wesley Eddy's comment, especially given the scope of changes to RFC 5272.
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-06)
Unknown
Please consider the editorial comments from the Gen-ART Review by Elwyn Davies on 5 September 2011.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-06)
Unknown
Doesn't the new change subject name thing require a new security consideration? E.g. if an RA says it'd like a new cert renaming stephen.farrell to *.google.com? I think just a sentence saying that the RA and CA need to ensure that both the new and old names adhere to any relevant policies/practices would do fine. There may be a case for also making the general point as well that CAs MUST check names are according to policy/practice as well, but even if so, the new name change thing should also get a mention I reckon. But that can all be done in one sentence so it should be easy.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-09-01)
Unknown
I don't have any problem with this if the WG and people implementing from it are happy with it, but it does seem that the format as just a collection of the changes rather than a stand-alone document to be possibly confusing and error-prone to work from. However, if the real stakeholders are happy with it, then that's all that matters, I guess.