Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
draft-bagnulo-multiple-hash-cga-03
Yes
(Lisa Dusseault)
(Russ Housley)
No Objection
(Jon Peterson)
(Lars Eggert)
(Magnus Westerlund)
(Mark Townsley)
(Ron Bonica)
(Ross Callon)
(Sam Hartman)
Recuse
(Jari Arkko)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Lisa Dusseault Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Chris Newman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-04-05)
Unknown
Section 4.1, last paragraph:
> insecure anyway. In any case, an implementation must not support two
> different meanings of a Sec value simultaneously.
Should that be "MUST NOT"?
Nit:
Section 5, last paragraph:
> for CGAs with that Sec value. This is so to provide a coherent
XX X
> protection both in the hash and the public key techniques.
Cullen Jennings Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2007-04-04)
Unknown
This is a trivial NIT but .... on a document that has received the review of a standards track document such as this one, I don't think you need to use language like "As far as we understand".
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Magnus Westerlund Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ross Callon Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown