IETF conflict review for draft-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl
conflict-review-hartmann-default-port-for-irc-via-tls-ssl-00
Discuss
Yes
(Barry Leiba)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Benoît Claise)
(Brian Haberman)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Pete Resnick)
(Ralph Droms)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Wesley Eddy)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
Discuss
Discuss
[Treat as non-blocking comment]
(2013-02-06)
Unknown
This document currently claims to Update RFCs 2812 and 2813, which are IETF stream documents that went through a Last Call. It's not clear it actually does, and that these are meant as "see also". If that's right, I suggest we ask these be removed. If that's not right, and these actually do update those RFCs, we should discuss whether this document is in the correct stream.
Barry Leiba Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Haberman Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Martin Stiemerling Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-06)
Unknown
In support of Robert's DISCUSS.
Pete Resnick Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ron Bonica Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Russ Housley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Sean Turner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-05)
Unknown
Note that if this document had come through the IETF stream I probably would have asked for a bit more information about the certificates: s2.3.1/2: why only common name what about putting the FQDN/nick in the subject alt extension? s2.3.1/2: when you say should verify that the certificate validates back to an installed Trust Anchor as in [RFC5280]? s2.3.2: Should the server also verify the client's cert? WRT to naming matching should RFC 6125 be followed?
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
(was Discuss, Yes)
No Objection
No Objection
(2014-01-30)
Unknown
The authors changed the UPDATEs stuff so the 5742 review is now ok.
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2013-02-06)
Unknown
I agree with Robert's Discuss. I also have concerns about giving this document any status with the port number included until it has been through port number review by the designated experts since this may precipitate a collision in the wild.
Wesley Eddy Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown