Additional New ASN.1 Modules for the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) and the Public Key Infrastructure Using X.509 (PKIX)
RFC 6268

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 08 and is now closed.

(Tim Polk) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-03 for -)
No email
send info
IMO, this should be PS *and* formally "Update" these other RFCs. See Stuart's discuss.

Section 6., paragraph 13:
>     --  Define each of the MAC-ALGOIRTHM objects to describe the

  Nit: s/MAC-ALGOIRTHM/MAC-ALGORITHM/


Section 2., paragraph 1:
>    Protocol designers can make use of the '08 ASN.1 contraints to define

  Nit: s/contraints/constraints/

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-02 for -)
No email
send info
I support Stewart's Discuss.
Although the resultant long list of "updates" may be a nuisance to some, it is important for the person who plans to update one of the other RFCs to know that this update exists.

---

I am a bit confused why the document talks about RFCs using the old (1988) syntax, but only describes the updates from 2002 to 2008.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-02 for -)
No email
send info
  Please consider the comments from the Gen-ART Review by Kathleen
  Moriarty on 5-JAN-2011.  You can found the review at:
  
    http://www.softarmor.com/rai/temp-gen-art/
    draft-turner-additional-new-asn-06-moriarty.txt

Alexey Melnikov No Objection

Comment (2011-02-01 for -)
No email
send info
I support Stewart's DISCUSS in regards to updating other RFCs, in particular RFC 5911, which defined earlier versions of new style ASN.1 modules.

I don't have much opinion regarding Informational versa PS, but I think PS would have been just fine.

Which tool was used to verify the new ASN.1?

(Dan Romascanu) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2011-02-03)
No email
send info
1. I support Stewart's DISCUSS

2. I think that the title of the document is too general and should be more specific - e.g. 'Additional New ASN.1 Modules Using the Cryptographic Message Syntax (CMS) format.

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

Comment (2011-01-31 for -)
No email
send info
For Stuart and Alexey: I raised very similar questions during the processing of 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-smime-new-asn1/history/>. This document is
following the same pattern that document did. 

(Sean Turner) Recuse