Using OpenPGP Keys for Transport Layer Security (TLS) Authentication
RFC 6091

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

Lars Eggert No Objection

(Sean Turner; former steering group member) Yes

Yes ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Adrian Farrel; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Alexey Melnikov; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Gonzalo Camarillo; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Jari Arkko; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Peter Saint-Andre; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Ralph Droms; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
No email
send info

(Ron Bonica; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Russ Housley; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Stewart Bryant; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info

(Tim Polk; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2010-09-23 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I support Adrian's discuss position; the document should clearly state that it defines a new cert_type and
the associated processing rules, rather than define a new extension.

As to Alexey's discuss, I do not believe reuse of the previously assigned experimental type is justified.  We have
far more values available than we should ever use, so the interoperability concerns should trump any other issues.
This specification should request a new value.