Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-10
Yes
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2015-05-27 for -09)
Unknown
Thank you for your work on this draft, it is very well written, easy-to-read, while solving an important problem. Thanks for the detailed security considerations as well.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -09)
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-05-26 for -09)
Unknown
The intended status in the document text does, indeed, need to be changed to "Standards Track". The last call was issued as "Proposed Standard", and the IESG ballot is set up for that, so I think we're OK -- please just fix the text in the next document rev.
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2015-05-26 for -09)
Unknown
Not issue on the technical content and the publication of this document, but https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/ and the write-up mention "Standard Track" while the draft status is Informational, as spotted by Linda in her OPS-DIR review below: This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for peers to negotiate support for these groups. The document is well written and very clear. A couple questions: 1) Why this document is not standard track? 2) Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g. “p-1” or p (Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be “p” (page 17). What is the significance of the range?
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown