Addition of the Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
RFC 6367

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

(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) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-07 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I am entering a "no objection" ballot on the basis of a very light review of a document far outside my area of expertise. I am relying on the shepherding Security AD to have ensured that this document is sound.

(Dan Romascanu; former steering group member) (was Discuss) No Objection

No Objection ()
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

(Pete Resnick; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection (2011-04-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The IANA Considerations section should be marked as "Please remove this section after filling in the values in section 2." Having the values appear in the document twice is a sure-fire way to introduce an error.

(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 (2011-04-14 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
The IPR disclosure for this document includes:


   The seller shall provide the buyer with the following written notice:

      The use of this product or service is subject to the reasonable,
      non-discriminatory terms in the Intellectual Property Rights
      (IPR) Disclosure of Certicom Corp. at the IETF for Addition of
      Camellia Cipher Suites to Transport Layer Security (TLS)
      implemented in the product or service.

I don't recall seeing such a provision in other IPR disclosures.  If it
is unusual, in my opinion it should be mentioned explicitly in any
new IETF last call.

(Robert Sparks; former steering group member) No Objection

No Objection ( for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
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 (2011-04-11 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
This document has an IPR disclosure against it, but I do not see this noted in the IETF Last Call notice.

(Wesley Eddy; former steering group member) No Objection

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

(Stephen Farrell; former steering group member) Abstain

Abstain (2011-04-13 for -** No value found for 'p.get_dochistory.rev' **)
No email
send info
I don't find the idea of adding yet another 42 TLS ciphersuites to be useful and to the extent that it complicates life for developers and consumes their time (mostly) needlessly, it's a bad thing. However, I don't think it would be fair to try to hold this at this stage in the game, given that the authors had agreement from previous IESG members. 

Please also see the secdir review at: http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg02584.html that indicates some clarifications may be useful.