kx509 Kerberized Certificate Issuance Protocol in Use in 2012

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 04 and is now closed.

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Ralph Droms) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-11 for -04)
No email
send info
Nice capture of issues by Stephen in the IESG note in the write-up. (Not sure this is the right place to capture it, but so long as the ISE finds it, who cares?)

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-12 for -04)
No email
send info
I support Barry's DISCUSS on this document.

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Barry Leiba (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2012-06-25 for -05)
No email
send info
[*** Update: the following comment has been addressed in the -05 version; thanks! ***]

Stephen notes my concern about the "not (previously) standardized" bit in the abstract.  But I want to elevate it above a kinda-sorta comment, and say that this document *does* constitute an end run around krb-wg if "(previously)" is not removed, in that it tries to mislead readers about the standard status of this document, and only krb-wg can write a kerberos standard.  (I'm sure that's not the intent, and that the author will likely be happy to remove the word; I just want to be sure about keeping it on the record.)

(Pete Resnick) No Objection

(Robert Sparks) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection

(Sean Turner) No Objection