Generic Security Service API Version 2: Java Bindings Update
RFC 5653

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Tim Polk) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lisa Dusseault) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2009-06-02)
No email
send info
  Please consider the places where "service@host" is used in examples.
  It would be better to use the domain names in RFC 2606 in examples.


  The Gen-ART Review by Gonzalo Camarillo on 2-Jun-2009 included a few
  comments that shoule be considered:

  In general, Abstracts should not contain references. While referencing
  RFC 2853 to explain that this document obsoletes it is probably OK, I
  would remove the rest of the references from the Abstract.

  The naming of the references is not consistent. Some of them are named
  [RFCxxxx] but not all of them.

  In Section 4, a ':' to introduce the definition of each optional
  service would probably make the text clearer (e.g., Mutual
  Authentication: in addition...)

  The word "Section" should be capitalized when referring to a specific
  section (e.g., in Section 8).

  The ID nits tool makes a few observations about boilerplates. The
  authors should make sure that the boilerplates in the draft are okay.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection