Multimedia Internet KEYing (MIKEY) General Extension Payload for Open Mobile Alliance BCAST LTKM/STKM Transport
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.
(Russ Housley) (was Discuss, Yes) Yes
(Jari Arkko) No Objection
Comment (2006-09-28 for -)
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.
(Brian Carpenter) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Cullen Jennings) (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.