Group Domain of Interpretation (GDOI) Protocol Support for IEC 62351 Security Services

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.

(Kathleen Moriarty) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

Comment (2016-10-25 for -09)
No email
send info
I would support adding a note as Stephen proposed in his Discuss, about the IETF's ability to evaluate this specification in the absence of access to referenced documents.

(Stephen Farrell) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2016-11-07)
No email
send info
Thanks for adding the suggested cautionary text.

OLD COMMENTS BELOW, I didn't check 'em.

- I'm left wondering why the IETF is doing this rather
than changing the registration rules for existing
registries (e.g. along the lines being followed for
TLS1.3) so that IEC could do the work themselves?

- The various algorithm codepoints listed at [GDOI-REG]
seem fairly outdated. Is it really a good idea to extend
those as is being done here by adding new registries for
modern ciphers? (It may be the case that we are doing
this because there is implementer energy for this, but
not for a general revamp of GDOI.)

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Comment (2016-10-26 for -09)
No email
send info
Carlos Pignataro (cpignata) <> provided the opsdir review

(Suresh Krishnan) No Objection

(Mirja Kühlewind) No Objection

Comment (2016-10-24 for -09)
No email
send info

s/MUST NOT be specified/MUST NOT be used/  (2x in the security section)

because this doc is the spec and not specifying it...

(Alexey Melnikov) No Objection

Comment (2016-10-23 for -09)
No email
send info
I assume that multioctet fields are in network byte order, but this is not mentioned anywhere.

Alvaro Retana No Objection