IBAKE: Identity-Based Authenticated Key Exchange
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Sean Turner) Yes
(Jari Arkko) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Ron Bonica) No Objection
(Stewart Bryant) No Objection
Comment (2011-10-31 for -)
I am voting No Objection on the basis of the IESG note and a quick check that this draft has no routing implications.
(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection
(Adrian Farrel) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Stephen Farrell) No Objection
Comment (2011-11-02 for -)
- I agree with the proposed IESG note, but I guess we need to figure out (with the ISE?) how to properly state that. - another case where the IPR declaration refers to a "standard" but this isn't going to be one. - section 1, Public key protocols do not require "large scale" PKI, as clearly demonstrated by the success of ssh. The statement is incorrect. - section 1, No evidence is give for the assertion that a PKG is "simple." Personally, I doubt that and the word's not needed in any case. Suggest s/simple// - section 1, Many IBE schemes have claimed that including dates in names avoids revocation issues. However, afaik, no one has actually done this in the wild so this claim is also just a bare assertion since the usability issues related to this idea are essentially untested. - section 2.1, IBE does not allow a public key to be calculated from an identity. IBE requires an identity *and* a set of PKG parameters in order to generate a public key. Truth-in-advertising would be better here. - Its not clear to me that two implementations of this would interoperate. That may or may not be the case, but I guess additional specification would be required. It would be good to say more about what'd be needed for that. - Its not really possible to evaluate the security claims of this protocol as part of a 5742 review. It'd be good if a statement to that effect were included. I'm not doubting the security claims, but they have not been exposed to wide spread review which would be needed were something like this to come out of the IETF track. - Its hard to see how 2119 is the only normative reference here. - typo: s/Privet/Private/