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