Security Attacks Found Against the Stream Control Transmission Protocol (SCTP) and Current Countermeasures
RFC 5062

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 05 and is now closed.

(Jari Arkko) Yes

(Lars Eggert) Yes

(Sam Hartman) (was Discuss) Yes

(Ron Bonica) No Objection

(Ross Callon) No Objection

(Russ Housley) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-23 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
  Section 2.2: s/In closely examination this/In close examination, this/
  Section 3: s/end to end/end-to-end/

  Section 3.3: s/set of two 32 bit nonces/pair of 32-bit nonces/

  Section 4.1: s/full four way handshake/full four-way handshake/

  Section 6.3: s/end point should/end point should:/

  Section 7.1: s/header i.e.  X+1 or Y+1/header, i.e.,  X+1 or Y+1/
               s/set's up/sets up/

  From the Gen-ART Review by Miguel Garcia: The document is well written.
  And, I agree.

(Cullen Jennings) No Objection

(Tim Polk) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Dan Romascanu) No Objection

Comment (2007-05-21 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The document does not split the references andincludes only an Informative References section. The PROTO write-up explains this on the grounds that the document is Informationat. I believe that this is wrong, as an Informational document may yet contain Normative References if these are essential reading for the understanding or implementation of the document. This seems to me to be the case with the SCTP protocol documents here.

(David Ward) No Objection

Magnus Westerlund No Objection