Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
RFC 4279
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) Yes
Glad to see this, it has been needed. It might be useful to state that examples of identities form a very partial list and that URIs and user@... (anything that can be expressed as a UTF-8 string), can be an identity. The requirements for inputting the identity allow many applications to use this. An RFC Editor note could easily add this, if you feel the clarification would help.
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Yes
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection
(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection
sect 5.1 has as first bullet:
o IPv4 addresses are sent as dotted-decimal strings (e.g.,
"192.0.1.2"), not as 32-bit integers in network byte order.
Probably better to adhere to RFC3330 and use 192.0.2.1 or some
other address in the 192.0.2.0/24 range.
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) (was Discuss, No Objection) No Objection
(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection
(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection
The document says: IANA does not currently have a registry for TLS-related numbers, so there are no IANA actions associated with this document. Note that IANA does have a TLS-related compression registry: http://www.iana.org/assignments/comp-meth-ids