Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance BCAST LTKM/STKM Transport
RFC 4909
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
If draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05 change the word it currently uses for "IETF Review" this documents IANA section will not make sense and IANA will not know what to do with it. Because of that I think draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05 should be a normative reference. My recommendation to fix this would instead of using draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05, instead reference 2434 which has exactly the same thing but calls it something different. Keep in mind, given it is the same thing with a new name, it is not out of the realm of possibility that the works "IETF Review" will change in draft-narten-iana-considerations-rfc2434bis-05 before it becomes an RFC. I put this as a comment - Russ and IANA can decide if they are willing to make this registration like this.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Kessens; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Cullen's Discuss and would recommend his alternative #2 for the resolution. The IANA considerations can perhaps say "Specification Required". See also RFC 4563 where 3GPP defined similar MIKEY extensions, but decided to do them in an IETF RFC.
(Lisa Dusseault; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection