Certificate Profile and Certificate Management for SEcure Neighbor Discovery (SEND)
RFC 6494
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 10 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) (was Discuss) Yes
(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) Yes
(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) No Objection
(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
It looks like the document needs an Informative reference to RFC 5781 (due to use of rsync URIs in the example).
(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection
I support the comments about the need to assign the TBS values in the conditions that the document has no IANA actions.
(David Harrington; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
1) section 5 is missing a verb, I think - "an end user could local SEND deployment" 2) expand ULA on first use.
(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection
(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection
(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection
(Russ Housley; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
In Section 7, there are several to-be-assigned values. They have
been assigned:
id-kp-sendRouter OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 23 }
id-kp-sendProxy OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 24 }
id-kp-sendOwner OBJECT IDENTIFIER ::= { id-kp 25 }
(Sean Turner; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection
(Tim Polk; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection
(1) Please review the secdir review in its totality. I realize this came in late, but I think there are a number of comments that would improve the document. The review is available at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg01701.html (2) In section 4, last sentence: Certified IPv6 address space SHOULD be expressed using either addressPrefix or addressesOrRange elements. I re-read the syntax in 3779, and I don't quite understand what is intended here. I don't think there is another choice in the end. Is the point that either a prefix or a range is acceptable? (3) Section 4 refers to an earlier version of sidr-res-certs, and the section numbering has changed. Specifically, the sections 3.9.10 and 3.9.11 are now 4.9.10 and 4.9.11. (There may be others.) If you are making other edits, updating the version number and section references might be a good idea.