End-to-End Signing and Object Encryption for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
draft-ietf-xmpp-e2e-09
Yes
(Scott Hollenbeck)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Ted Hardie)
(Thomas Narten)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Harald Alvestrand Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-24)
Unknown
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART The comments are serious enough to warrant addressing, but I don't think they warrant an extra DISCUSS.
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-21)
Unknown
Please change the title of the document to reflect the support of digital signatures as well as encryption. Please delete section 1.2 prior to publication as an RFC. The section headings for section 3 and section 4 are misleading. I expected to see discussion of encryption, but the sections are about digital signatures. [CERT] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis-*, which is in the RFC Editor queue. [CMC] is pointing to the wrong document. It should be a reference to RFC 2797. Also, this should be an informative reference, not a normative one. [CMP] should be an informative reference, not a normative one. [CMS] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-*, which is in the RFC Editor queue. [SMIME] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-*, which is in the RFC Editor queue. I think [XML] should be an informative reference, not a normative one.
Steven Bellovin Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2004-06-21)
Unknown
Is some mechanism necessary by which a node can ascertain if the remote end supports this mechanism?
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Thomas Narten Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown