Suite B Profile for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
RFC 6460
Yes
No Objection
Recuse
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
Shame about not cleaning up the idnits before presenting for review. Please save the RFC Editor the time by fixing them before advancing.
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection
(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection
Gads, I hate the use of RFC 2119 language when what you're saying is, "In order to conform to NSA Suite B, you MUST do this." That sort of fails the 2119 requirement that "they MUST only be used where it is actually required for interoperation or to limit behavior which has potential for causing harm (e.g., limiting retransmisssions) For example, they must not be used to try to impose a particular method on implementors where the method is not required for interoperability." It's not a DISCUSSion worth having for this document individually, and the document that this one obsoletes does exactly the same thing, but it's a discussion we should have at some point.
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
It seems that this document is missing the section on "differences from RFC 5430".
(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) Recuse