Addition of Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.
(Russ Housley) Yes
(Harald Alvestrand) No Objection
Reviewed by John Loughney, Gen-ART His review: Ready for publication, with some minor nits. Nits: 1) Introduction says: Note: This work was done when the first author worked for NTT. It might be better to put this in the acknowledgements. 2) Section "1.2. Terminology" uses RFC 2119 terminology, but it isn't used elsewhere in the document, so this section can be removed. 3) Missing IANA considerations section, so one should be added.
(Margaret Cullen) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) No Objection
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
(Scott Hollenbeck) No Objection
Should the document note somewhere that it is updating the list of ciphersuites described in RFC 2246? More pointedly, does this document update RFC 2246?
(David Kessens) No Objection
(Allison Mankin) No Objection
RFC 3967 did not end up stating explicitly that any Informational RFC encryption document may be a normative references for a PS - so is it ok that this document down-references to the Camellia Informational RFC without having announced doing so in the Last Call? We should just note that this is the right category for such a waiver. The RFC 2119 terminology is not needed - there are no uses.