[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Evaluation: draft-nesser-otp-sha-256-384-512 - AES Companion Hash Definitions (SHA256, SHA384, SHA512) for OTP to Proposed Standard

To: iesg-secretary@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Evaluation: draft-nesser-otp-sha-256-384-512 - AES Companion Hash Definitions (SHA256, SHA384, SHA512) for OTP to Proposed Standard
From: Allison Mankin <mankin@psg.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Jun 2003 21:07:47 -0700
Cc: iesg@ietf.org
In-reply-to: Your message of Wed, 11 Jun 2003 14:06:15 -0400. <20030611180616.0241D7B4D@berkshire.research.att.com>

>	Please return the full line with your position.
>
>                    Yes    No-Objection  Discuss *  Abstain  
>
>Allison Mankin     [   ]     [   ]       [ x ]      [   ] 

Perhaps a bad idea to have the set of home-grown definitions of MAY, SHOULD,
MUST, rather than citing RFC 2119.  The definitions aren't bad, but it's not
a great precedent?

References:
- Re: Evaluation: draft-nesser-otp-sha-256-384-512 - AES Companion Hash Definitions (SHA256, SHA384, SHA512) for OTP to Proposed Standard
  - From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@research.att.com>

Prev by Date: Re: draft-pillay-esnault-ospf-flooding-05.txt
Next by Date: Re: draft-ietf-bgmp-spec-05.txt
Previous by thread: Re: Evaluation: draft-nesser-otp-sha-256-384-512 - AES Companion Hash Definitions (SHA256, SHA384, SHA512) for OTP to Proposed Standard
Next by thread: Comments on <draft-kishan-lsp-btrace-04.txt>
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread