PKCS #12: Personal Information Exchange Syntax v1.1
draft-moriarty-pkcs12v1-1-05
Yes
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Pete Resnick)
(Spencer Dawkins)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Richard Barnes Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-01-23 for -04)
Unknown
As someone who has gone to the effort of implementing PKCS#12, this is an enthusiastic Yes.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -03)
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(2014-01-22 for -04)
Unknown
It'd maybe be good to note in 1.1 that "this standard" etc is language carried over fron the pkcs series to avoid confusion.
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -04)
Unknown
I'm making this a COMMENT for now, and will chat with Sean about it. Depending upon how that chat goes, it might morph into a DISCUSS. Or not. We'll see: I wonder why this is being published in the IETF stream, rather than the Independent stream, given that it's Informational, and not Standards Track. And given that it's Informational, and not Standards Track, I have an issue with the many times it calls itself "this standard" all through the document. Apart from that, I certainly have no objection to the publication of this as an RFC, and I'm glad to see that change control is being given to the IETF, so future versions could be put on Standards Track.
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-21 for -04)
Unknown
I don't think I've seen an answer to Bert Wijnen's OPS DIR review (note that a mistake in the OPSDIR address might explain it)
Here is Bert's feedback:
From an operational and NM aspect, I do not see any issues.
I do have some general questions/comments though.
(None of them blocking though)
- The documents iften says "this standard".
That feels weird. It is targeted for INFORMATIONAL document
and if with "this standard" it is meant to say "ietf standard", then
that status is something that may change over the liftime of an RFC.
I think it might be better to use "this document" or "this memo".
- IN the security considerations section it syas:
and relevant guidelines (e.g., SP 800-61-1) should be taken
And in the change log it says:
A reference was added to SP 800-132 for its recommendations...
But I am missing the "citation" and the item in the REFERENCES section.
I guess those active in security AREA all know where to find this,
but for other readers it might be handy to have that refeneces in the
list of references.
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -04)
Unknown
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-22 for -04)
Unknown
Barry and Benoit raise an important point that should be addressed.