Diameter Attribute-Value Pairs for Cryptographic Key Transport
draft-ietf-dime-local-keytran-14
Yes
(Dan Romascanu)
(Jari Arkko)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(David Harrington)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 14 and is now closed.
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Harrington Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-07-11)
Unknown
The Gen-ART Review by Joel Halpern on 2-Jun-2011 asks a reasonable question. I would like to see it answered. The document carefully and reasonably does not define the contents of the keying material AVP. This reviewer presumes that those closer to the activity will know where the contents have been or will be defined. Are they already defined, or will they be defined in future documents? If they are already defined, would it make sense to state that, and identify the location? (My confusion is that it would seem difficult for existing RFCs to define the format of a TLV that did not exist. But that may be a failure of my understanding.)
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-07-13)
Unknown
I fully support Stephen's discuss positions.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2011-08-16)
Unknown
I've cleared points 1 & 2 since the RSA key type is now gone (a pity, but I understand why, and hope it comes back in another form soon); my 2nd point was me getting it wrong, (other specifications use this and handle MTI rather than this one), --- original discuss text below --- (1) I'm not sure that the Key-Type AVP is well enough specified. At least for the RSA-KEM variant, I would have expected to see a set of CMS options (e.g. are certs to be included or not) would be needed in order to get interop. (I was offine doing the review and am not familiar enough with the other options to know if the same issue arises.) Have there been any implementations of these, and if so, what did they put in the key values? I also don't get why the RFCs defining the details for Key-Type AVPs are informative and not normative. If this document defines a protocol that will result in interop, then they need to be normative I'd have thought. (2) Which of the Key-Type(s) are implementers of this expected to support?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown