Datagram Transport Layer Security Version 1.2
RFC 6347
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
Lars Eggert No Objection
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) Yes
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
I support Alexey's Discuss about description of the changes since/to 4347 --- Should the version numbering be recorded by IANA? --- How is wrapping of epoch and sequence number handled? Or is it considered that they will never need to wrap? --- It might be valuable to repeat the UDP warning from 4.1.2.7 in section 5 --- Section 4.3 This section includes specifications for the data structures that have changed between TLS 1.2 and DTLS. I think s/DTLS/DTLS 1.2/ ---
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
SCTP, RC4, SCTP-AUTH should have Informative references.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) 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
I support Alexey's DISCUSS regarding the need for a section describing the changes from DTLS 1.0 (RFC 4347).
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
Suport OPS-DIR DISCUSS
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection
placeholder for Charlie Kaufman's secdir review - this deserves a response. I made this a comment since I know that the sponsoring AD intends to seem them addressed.