Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Authority Information Access Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Extension
draft-ietf-pkix-crlaia-03
Yes
(Sam Hartman)
No Objection
(Alex Zinin)
(Allison Mankin)
(Bert Wijnen)
(Bill Fenner)
(David Kessens)
(Jon Peterson)
(Margaret Cullen)
(Mark Townsley)
(Scott Hollenbeck)
Recuse
(Russ Housley)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.
Sam Hartman Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alex Zinin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Allison Mankin Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bert Wijnen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Bill Fenner Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Brian Carpenter Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-31)
Unknown
Gen-ART review comments from Spencer Dawkins:
In Section 3 Security Considerations
Question: Is there any more specific guidance that could be given about
how implementers "take into account" the possible existence described here?
Even a reference someplace would be nice.
Implementers should take into account the possible existence of
multiple unrelated CAs and CRL issuers with the same name.
Extreme Nit: I apologize in advance for asking, but do we use abbreviations
in RFC titles? From ftp://ftp.rfc-editor.org/in-notes/rfc-editor/instructions2authors.txt:
Abbreviations (e.g., acronyms) in a title must generally be expanded
when first encountered.
In Section 2. Authority Information Access CRL Extension
Nit: this paragraph was a little harder to parse than it should have been:
This extension MUST be identified by the extension object identifier
(OID) defined in RFC 3280 (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.1.1), and the
AuthorityInfoAccessSyntax MUST be used to form the extension value.
For convenience, the ASN.1 [X.680] definition of the Authority
Information Access extension is repeated below.
Could I suggest something like
"This extension MUST be identified by the extension Object IDentifier
(OID) defined in RFC 3280 (1.3.6.1.5.5.7.1.1), and the Authority
Information Access syntax MUST be used to form the extension value.
For convenience, the ASN.1 [X.680] definition of the Authority
Information Access extension is repeated below."
David Kessens Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jon Peterson Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Margaret Cullen Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mark Townsley Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Scott Hollenbeck Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ted Hardie Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2005-08-30)
Unknown
This document should probably reference draft-ietf-ldapbis-url-09.txt (in the RFC Editor's queue) in Section 2's discussion of the LDAP URI; it may, in particular, want to point to the security considerations section of that draft.
Russ Housley Former IESG member
Recuse
Recuse
()
Unknown