Suite B Cryptographic Suites for IPsec
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 01 and is now closed.
(Jari Arkko) Yes
(Russ Housley) Yes
(Ross Callon) No Objection
(Brian Carpenter) No Objection
(Lars Eggert) (was Discuss) No Objection
(Bill Fenner) No Objection
(Ted Hardie) (was Discuss) No Objection
My original discuss said: I'd like to understand why this is a candidate for proposed standard. As it stands, the IANA registry requires only RFC publication and the approval of a designated expert; it does not require standards track. This document appears to set out suites for which the IETF has no change control and in whose development the IETF involvement was minimal. As an informational document, registering these values and giving this information to the community makes sense. But why does it need to be PS? Russ's answer is that he feels that PS gives more weight to the understanding that these labels cannot be used for any other purpose. I don't agree with that reasoning, since I believe that the registration is sufficient and the document setting up the registry is clear on that point. But I see no harm in these being PS, and I will leave up to future sponsoring ADs to determine whether to sponsor future documents as Informational or PS. As it stands, I believe that a larger change to the registry would be required to make the distinction useful.
(Sam Hartman) No Objection
I tend to agree with Ted this should be informational.