IETF conflict review for draft-mavrogiannopoulos-pkcs8-validated-parameters

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.

Ballot question: "Is this the correct conflict review response?"

Alissa Cooper Yes

(Mirja K├╝hlewind) Yes

(Eric Rescorla) Yes

Comment (2018-06-21)
No email
send info
Because it extends a document (RFC 5208) that was published via the IETF process, the appropriate way to proceed is for this to go through the IETF process as well, specifically  SECDISPATCH. If the IETF decides it does not want to take it on, then we can revisit this question.

(Ignas Bagdonas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Comment (2018-06-19 for -00)
No email
send info
I do not object to the conclusion per se, but I note that Adrian argues (in the shepherd writeup) that this is an implementation option that does not need to update RFC 5208 or RFC 5958.

 I am agnostic about the correctness of either position.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Benjamin Kaduk No Objection

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Adam Roach) (was No Record, Yes) No Objection

Martin Vigoureux No Objection