End-to-End Signing and Object Encryption for the Extensible Messaging and Presence Protocol (XMPP)
RFC 3923

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

(Scott Hollenbeck) Yes

(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-24 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
Reviewed by Spencer Dawkins, Gen-ART
The comments are serious enough to warrant addressing, but I don't think they warrant an extra DISCUSS.

(Steven Bellovin) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-21)
No email
send info
Is some mechanism necessary by which a node can ascertain if the remote end supports this mechanism?

(Margaret Cullen) No Objection

(Bill Fenner) No Objection

(Ted Hardie) No Objection

(Russ Housley) (was Discuss) No Objection

Comment (2004-06-21)
No email
send info
  Please change the title of the document to reflect the support of digital
  signatures as well as encryption.

  Please delete section 1.2 prior to publication as an RFC.

  The section headings for section 3 and section 4 are misleading.  I
  expected to see discussion of encryption, but the sections are about
  digital signatures.

  [CERT] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc2632bis-*, which is in the
  RFC Editor queue.

  [CMC] is pointing to the wrong document.  It should be a reference to
  RFC 2797.  Also, this should be an informative reference, not a
  normative one.

  [CMP] should be an informative reference, not a normative one.

  [CMS] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc3369bis-*, which is in the
  RFC Editor queue.

  [SMIME] should point to draft-ietf-smime-rfc2633bis-*, which is in the
  RFC Editor queue.

  I think [XML] should be an informative reference, not a normative one.

(David Kessens) No Objection

(Allison Mankin) No Objection

(Thomas Narten) No Objection

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Alex Zinin) No Objection