Authorization for NSIS Signaling Layer Protocols
draft-ietf-nsis-nslp-auth-07
Yes
(Lars Eggert)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-09)
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
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-14)
Unknown
Updated #4 to be more specific. 1) Sec 3.2.7: MUST? OLD: rsv: reserved bits and must be set to 0 (zero) and ignored upon reception. NEW: rsv: reserved bits and MUST be set to 0 (zero) and ignored upon reception. 2) Sec 3.7, MUST? OLD: ... they must be delivered via the GIST API and normalized to ... NEW: ... they MUST be delivered via the GIST API and normalized to ... 3) Figure in Sec 4.3 only shows PGP_CERT. Should it also show X509_V3_CERT? Also shouldn't the other figures in the draft include "Figure #"? 4) Sec 4.4: Replace recommended with RECOMMENDED (x2)? 5) Sec 4.4: hash algorithm must be chosen vs hash algorithm MUST be chosen?
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-09)
Unknown
1. Assuming HMAC_SIGNED bring new functionality, why only support HMAC? 2. Is there a compelling reason to specify HMAC-MD5 instead of HMAC-SHA1?