Internet X.509 Public Key Infrastructure Authority Information Access Certificate Revocation List (CRL) Extension
draft-ietf-pkix-crlaia-03

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Sam Hartman; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ()
No email
send info

(Alex Zinin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Allison Mankin; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Bert Wijnen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Bill Fenner; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Brian Carpenter; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-08-31)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Jon Peterson; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Margaret Cullen; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Mark Townsley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Scott Hollenbeck; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ted Hardie; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2005-08-30)
No email
send info
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 steering group member) Recuse

Recuse ()
No email
send info