Skip to main content

IETF conflict review for draft-santesson-svt
conflict-review-santesson-svt-00

Yes


No Objection

Erik Kline
John Scudder
Éric Vyncke
(Alvaro Retana)
(Martin Duke)
(Robert Wilton)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Roman Danyliw
Yes
Comment (2022-06-27) Not sent
==[ For the IESG
* This document went to SecDispatch at IETF 107.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/107/materials/minutes-107-secdispatch-00.  The dispatch result was "Need to build more community."

* This document returned to SecDispatch at IETF 109.  https://datatracker.ietf.org/meeting/109/materials/minutes-109-secdispatch-00.  The dispatch result was to create a new mailing list to grow a community of interest.

* In November 2020 the "svt" mailing list was created (https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/svt/) but energy to create a body of work around the SVT concept was not generated.
Erik Kline
No Objection
John Scudder
No Objection
Murray Kucherawy
No Objection
Comment (2022-06-28) Not sent
I support Paul's DISCUSS.
Paul Wouters
(was Discuss) No Objection
Comment (2022-07-08) Sent
Old DISCUSS was addressed - the document already went through there but there was no interest.

I am a bit worried about this document, as it basically short-circuits the presumed certificate validation process. While one could think of it as a "secure cache" with some cache management, I'm a bit nervous that passing tokens around can lead to reduced or bypassed certificate validation.

Could this not fit into lamps for WG discussion?
Éric Vyncke
No Objection
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Martin Duke Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent

                            
Robert Wilton Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection () Not sent