Group Domain of Interpretation (GDOI) Protocol Support for IEC 62351 Security Services
draft-weis-gdoi-iec62351-9-10
Yes
(Kathleen Moriarty)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alissa Cooper)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Ben Campbell)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
(for -09)
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-23 for -09)
Unknown
I assume that multioctet fields are in network byte order, but this is not mentioned anywhere.
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Alissa Cooper Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown
Benoît Claise 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
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-26 for -09)
Unknown
Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <cpignata@cisco.com> provided the opsdir review
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-24 for -09)
Unknown
Maybe s/MUST NOT be specified/MUST NOT be used/ (2x in the security section) because this doc is the spec and not specifying it...
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-10-25 for -09)
Unknown
I would support adding a note as Stephen proposed in his Discuss, about the IETF's ability to evaluate this specification in the absence of access to referenced documents.
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
(2016-11-07)
Unknown
Thanks for adding the suggested cautionary text. OLD COMMENTS BELOW, I didn't check 'em. - I'm left wondering why the IETF is doing this rather than changing the registration rules for existing registries (e.g. along the lines being followed for TLS1.3) so that IEC could do the work themselves? - The various algorithm codepoints listed at [GDOI-REG] seem fairly outdated. Is it really a good idea to extend those as is being done here by adding new registries for modern ciphers? (It may be the case that we are doing this because there is implementer energy for this, but not for a general revamp of GDOI.)
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(for -09)
Unknown