Transport Layer Security Protocol Compression Methods
RFC 3749

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.

(Steven Bellovin) Yes

(Ned Freed) (was No Objection, Discuss) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-07 for -)
No email
send info
I think Ned's DISCUSS is important, and warrants a new I-D.
Minor nit: In section 2 bullet 1, the TLS WG assumes that it will live forever. The paragraph should stop after "future standardization efforts".
Similarly in bullet 2.

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) (was Yes) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-08 for -)
No email
send info
Clearly written.

"the compressor maintains it's state" -> its

In the IANA Considerations:  per Harald's comment on the TLS
WG lifetime, could make this something like "TLS WG or its 
successor as designated by the Security 
Area of the IETF".

(Thomas Narten) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-08 for -)
No email
send info
A recompile with <?rfc compact="yes" ?> would be nice.

(Bert Wijnen) No Objection

Comment (2004-01-08 for -)
No email
send info
Is it not confusing to have both sect 3 and sect 9?
Both discussing IPR considerartions!?

(Alex Zinin) No Objection