Requirements and Analysis of Media Security Management Protocols
RFC 5479
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Cullen Jennings; former steering group member) Yes
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) Yes
(Chris Newman; former steering group member) No Objection
(David Ward; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Magnus Westerlund; former steering group member) No Objection
(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pasi Eronen; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Oops -- wrong document, please ignore the "discuss" text) Tero Kivinen's SecDir review identified some parts that would benefit from editorial improvements (such as giving pointers to specific sections of 5.* when discussing R-* in Sections 3 and 4). http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg00171.html
(Ross Callon; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
In my opinion, readability would be enhanced if forward references to requirements included section numbers. For example, in Section 3: OLD The discussion in this section relates to requirements R-PASS-MEDIA, R-PASS-SIG, R-ASSOC, R-SIG-MEDIA, R-ACT-ACT, and R-ID-BINDING. NEW The discussion in this section relates to requirements R-ASSOC (specified in Section 5.1), R-PASS-MEDIA, R-PASS-SIG, R-SIG-MEDIA, R-ACT-ACT, and R-ID-BINDING (specified in Section 5.2). This could alternatively be addressed in the Introduction, noting that that requirements have the form R-xxxx and are specified after the motivating text, or by adding section numbers to the definitions (e.g., the definiton of R-PASS-MEDIA would refer to section 3).