PKCS #12: Personal Information Exchange Syntax v1.1
RFC 7292

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

(Richard Barnes) Yes

Comment (2014-01-23 for -04)
No email
send info
As someone who has gone to the effort of implementing PKCS#12, this is an enthusiastic Yes.

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

Comment (2014-01-22 for -04)
No email
send info
It'd maybe be good to note in 1.1 that "this standard" etc
is language carried over fron the pkcs series to avoid
confusion.

(Sean Turner) Yes

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Stewart Bryant) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-22 for -04)
No email
send info
Barry and Benoit raise an important point that should be addressed.

(Gonzalo Camarillo) No Objection

(Benoît Claise) No Objection

Comment (2014-01-21 for -04)
No email
send info
I don't think I've seen an answer to Bert Wijnen's OPS DIR review (note that a mistake in the OPSDIR address might explain it)
Here is Bert's feedback:

From an operational and NM aspect, I do not see any issues.

I do have some general questions/comments though.
(None of them blocking though)

- The documents iften says "this standard".
  That feels weird. It is targeted for INFORMATIONAL document
  and if with "this standard" it is meant to say "ietf standard", then
  that status is something that may change over the liftime of an RFC.
  I think it might be better to use "this document" or "this memo".
- IN the security considerations section it syas:
     and relevant guidelines (e.g., SP 800-61-1) should be taken
  And in the change log it says:
     A reference was added to SP 800-132 for its recommendations...
  But I am missing the "citation" and the item in the REFERENCES section.
  I guess those active in security AREA all know where to find this,
  but for other readers it might be handy to have that refeneces in the
  list of references.

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Adrian Farrel) No Objection

(Brian Haberman) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Barry Leiba No Objection

Comment (2014-01-21 for -04)
No email
send info
I'm making this a COMMENT for now, and will chat with Sean about it.  Depending upon how that chat goes, it might morph into a DISCUSS.  Or not.  We'll see:

I wonder why this is being published in the IETF stream, rather than the Independent stream, given that it's Informational, and not Standards Track.  And given that it's Informational, and not Standards Track, I have an issue with the many times it calls itself "this standard" all through the document.

Apart from that, I certainly have no objection to the publication of this as an RFC, and I'm glad to see that change control is being given to the IETF, so future versions could be put on Standards Track.

(Pete Resnick) (was Discuss) No Objection

(Martin Stiemerling) No Objection