IP Authentication Header
RFC 4302

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Steven Bellovin) Discuss

Discuss (2003-10-02 for -)
Section 6 can't be evaluated until 2401bis shows up.

(Russ Housley) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2005-01-06 for -)
Reviewed by Elwyn Davies, Gen-ART

Review in document comments; they seem as if they would have made the document better if addressed, but this has already been around the bush once. Not worth holding it for these.

(Randy Bush) (was No Record, No Objection) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ned Freed) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

Comment (2005-01-06 for -)
The security considerations section is weak.  Ideally it would be
better.  However I cannot think of things that need to be added that
would affect what people do in practice.

(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) (was Discuss, Yes) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-02)
If mandatory-to-implement algorithms have been moved out of 2402bis into a
separate RFC (per Section 7 and the 2nd paragraph of Section 5), it might be
nice to have a normative reference to that separate RFC in 2402bis.

(Margaret Wasserman) No Objection

Comment (2003-10-02 for -)
There is a normative reference to the IPv6 specification (presumably
because this document references the IPv6 header fields), but there
is no normative reference to IPv4.  I think that there should be.

(Bert Wijnen) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection