Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
RFC 6091
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; 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) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
I support Adrian's discuss position; the document should clearly state that it defines a new cert_type and the associated processing rules, rather than define a new extension. As to Alexey's discuss, I do not believe reuse of the previously assigned experimental type is justified. We have far more values available than we should ever use, so the interoperability concerns should trump any other issues. This specification should request a new value.