Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
draft-bagnulo-multiple-hash-cga-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-05)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2007-04-04)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()
No email
send info