Security Attacks Found Against the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Current Countermeasures
draft-ietf-tsvwg-sctpthreat-05

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

Jari Arkko Yes

( Lars Eggert ) Yes

( Sam Hartman ) (was Discuss) Yes

( Ron Bonica ) No Objection

( Ross Callon ) No Objection

( Russ Housley ) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-23 for -)
  Section 2.2: s/In closely examination this/In close examination, this/

  Section 3: s/end to end/end-to-end/

  Section 3.3: s/set of two 32 bit nonces/pair of 32-bit nonces/

  Section 4.1: s/full four way handshake/full four-way handshake/

  Section 6.3: s/end point should/end point should:/

  Section 7.1: s/header i.e.  X+1 or Y+1/header, i.e.,  X+1 or Y+1/
               s/set's up/sets up/

  From the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia: The document is well written.
  And, I agree.

( Cullen Jennings ) No Objection

( Tim Polk ) (was Discuss) No Objection

( Dan Romascanu ) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-21 for -)
The document does not split the references andincludes only an Informative
References section. The PROTO write-up explains this on the grounds that the
document is Informationat. I believe that this is wrong, as an Informational
document may yet contain Normative References if these are essential reading
for the understanding or implementation of the document. This seems to me to be
the case with the SCTP protocol documents here.

( David Ward ) No Objection

( Magnus Westerlund ) No Objection