Uplifting RFC5289 from informational to proposed standard
status-change-uplifting-rfc5289-to-ps-00
Yes
(Alexey Melnikov)
(Ben Campbell)
(Kathleen Moriarty)
(Stephen Farrell)
No Objection
(Alia Atlas)
(Alvaro Retana)
(Benoît Claise)
(Deborah Brungard)
(Jari Arkko)
(Joel Jaeggli)
(Mirja Kühlewind)
(Suresh Krishnan)
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 00 and is now closed.
Ballot question: "Do we approve these RFC status changes?"
Alexey Melnikov Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Ben Campbell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Kathleen Moriarty Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Stephen Farrell Former IESG member
Yes
Yes
()
Unknown
Alia Atlas Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Alvaro Retana Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Benoît Claise Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Deborah Brungard Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Jari Arkko Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Joel Jaeggli Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Mirja Kühlewind Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown
Spencer Dawkins Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
(2017-03-08)
Unknown
This seems like a fine thing to do. I am curious about whether there's an intention to uplift other Informational cipher suites RFCs to proposed standard - I don't know the topology here, but I do see that we've published Informational RFCs with "cipher suite" in the title, as recently as 2014 (per https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/search/?name=Cipher+suit&rfcs=on). But I'm a No Objection, no matter what the answer is.
Suresh Krishnan Former IESG member
No Objection
No Objection
()
Unknown