Security Attacks Found Against the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Current Countermeasures
RFC 5062
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) Yes
(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
The document does not split the references andincludes only an Informative References section. The PROTO write-up explains this on the grounds that the document is Informationat. I believe that this is wrong, as an Informational document may yet contain Normative References if these are essential reading for the understanding or implementation of the document. This seems to me to be the case with the SCTP protocol documents here.
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
Section 2.2: s/In closely examination this/In close examination, this/
Section 3: s/end to end/end-to-end/
Section 3.3: s/set of two 32 bit nonces/pair of 32-bit nonces/
Section 4.1: s/full four way handshake/full four-way handshake/
Section 6.3: s/end point should/end point should:/
Section 7.1: s/header i.e. X+1 or Y+1/header, i.e., X+1 or Y+1/
s/set's up/sets up/
From the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia: The document is well written.
And, I agree.
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection