Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
draft-mavrogiannopoulos-rfc5081bis-09
Yes
(Sean Turner)
No Objection
(Adrian Farrel)
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Dan Romascanu)
(Gonzalo Camarillo)
(Jari Arkko)
(Lars Eggert)
(Peter Saint-Andre)
(Ralph Droms)
(Robert Sparks)
(Ron Bonica)
(Russ Housley)
(Stewart Bryant)
(Tim Polk)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Sean Turner Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Adrian Farrel Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Dan Romascanu Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Gonzalo Camarillo Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Lars Eggert Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Peter Saint-Andre Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Ralph Droms Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Robert Sparks Former IESG member
(was Discuss)
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
Stewart Bryant Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Tim Polk Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2010-09-23)
Unknown
I support Adrian's discuss position; the document should clearly state that it defines a new cert_type and the associated processing rules, rather than define a new extension. As to Alexey's discuss, I do not believe reuse of the previously assigned experimental type is justified. We have far more values available than we should ever use, so the interoperability concerns should trump any other issues. This specification should request a new value.