Skip to main content

Negotiated Finite Field Diffie-Hellman Ephemeral Parameters for Transport Layer Security (TLS)
RFC 7919

Yes

(Stephen Farrell)

No Objection

Alvaro Retana
(Alia Atlas)
(Ben Campbell)
(Brian Haberman)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Martin Stiemerling)
(Spencer Dawkins)

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

Alvaro Retana No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (2015-05-27 for -09)
Thank you for your work on this draft, it is very well written, easy-to-read, while solving an important problem.  Thanks for the detailed security considerations as well.

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Yes

Yes (for -09)

                            

(Alia Atlas; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Barry Leiba; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-26 for -09)
The intended status in the document text does, indeed, need to be changed to "Standards Track".  The last call was issued as "Proposed Standard", and the IESG ballot is set up for that, so I think we're OK -- please just fix the text in the next document rev.

(Ben Campbell; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Benoît Claise; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2015-05-26 for -09)
Not issue on the technical content and the publication of this document, but https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/ and the write-up mention "Standard Track" while the draft status is Informational, as spotted by Linda in her OPS-DIR review below:

This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for
peers to negotiate support for these groups.
The document is well written and very clear.
A couple questions:
1)    Why this document is not standard track?
2)    Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g.  “p-1” or p (Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be “p” (page 17). What is the significance of the range?

(Brian Haberman; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Deborah Brungard; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Martin Stiemerling; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)

                            

(Spencer Dawkins; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (for -09)