Authorization for NSIS Signaling Layer Protocols
RFC 5981
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 07 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
Updated #4 to be more specific. 1) Sec 3.2.7: MUST? OLD: rsv: reserved bits and must be set to 0 (zero) and ignored upon reception. NEW: rsv: reserved bits and MUST be set to 0 (zero) and ignored upon reception. 2) Sec 3.7, MUST? OLD: ... they must be delivered via the GIST API and normalized to ... NEW: ... they MUST be delivered via the GIST API and normalized to ... 3) Figure in Sec 4.3 only shows PGP_CERT. Should it also show X509_V3_CERT? Also shouldn't the other figures in the draft include "Figure #"? 4) Sec 4.4: Replace recommended with RECOMMENDED (x2)? 5) Sec 4.4: hash algorithm must be chosen vs hash algorithm MUST be chosen?
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
1. Assuming HMAC_SIGNED bring new functionality, why only support HMAC? 2. Is there a compelling reason to specify HMAC-MD5 instead of HMAC-SHA1?