Transport Layer Security

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04-01 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this charter ready for external review? Is this charter ready for approval without external review?"

(Jari Arkko) Yes

Comment (2014-02-05 for -04-01)
This is important work and thank you for doing it. Lets move forward on this as soon as possible.

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Spencer Dawkins Yes

Comment (2014-02-06 for -04-02)
I don't understand why this wouldn't go for external review. Maybe someone could explain that on the call?

My understanding is that we do external review for a couple of reasons - so we don't surprise other SDOs, and so they are aware that we're considering new work and can provide feedback. 

(External review also goes onto New-Work - I thought automatically, although people who have been on the IESG longer could say for sure)

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

(Sean Turner) Yes

Comment (2014-02-01 for -04-01)
Let's skip external review please.

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

Benoit Claise No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-05 for -04-01)
Is "CBC block cipher mode" really not redundant somehow?


Helpful if the text could expand "CBC" and "RC4" notwithstanding they are terms of art in TLS. Also probably correct to give pointers to the relevant RFCs

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

(Barry Leiba) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-05 for -04-01)
I agree with Pete that we should have external review here.  The two-week delay won't make any difference.

(Ted Lemon) No Objection

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

Comment (2014-02-04 for -04-01)
Definitely ready for external review. I'm not clear how we can go without external review given that this is changing a primary item in the current charter, which explicitly forbids looking at TLS 1.3. Shouldn't this go out for the new-work list and everyone to see before approval?

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection