Support for Multiple Hash Algorithms in Cryptographically Generated Addresses (CGAs)
RFC 4982

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 03 and is now closed.

(Lisa Dusseault) Yes

(Russ Housley) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Lars Eggert) No Objection

(Sam Hartman) No Objection

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

Comment (2007-04-04)
No email
send info
This is a trivial NIT but .... on a document that has received the review of a standards track document such as this one, I don't think you need to use language like "As far as we understand".

(Chris Newman) No Objection

Comment (2007-04-05)
No email
send info
Section 4.1, last paragraph:
>   insecure anyway.  In any case, an implementation must not support two
>   different meanings of a Sec value simultaneously.

Should that be "MUST NOT"?

Nit:
Section 5, last paragraph:
>   for CGAs with that Sec value.  This is so to provide a coherent
                                           XX            X
>   protection both in the hash and the public key techniques.

(Jon Peterson) No Objection

(Mark Townsley) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection

(Jari Arkko) Recuse