Subject: [saag] Pete Resnick's Yes on draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-05: (with COMMENT)

From: "Pete Resnick" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2014 17:57:25 -0800

Pete Resnick has entered the following ballot position for
draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security-05: Yes

When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all
email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this
introductory paragraph, however.)

Please refer to http://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-dukhovni-opportunistic-security/

----------------------------------------------------------------------
COMMENT:
----------------------------------------------------------------------

The last sentence of replacement paragraph for section 3 in the RFC
Editor Note is distasteful. Discussion of the "transition" from broken
algorithms to good ones (let alone the transition from cleartext to
encrypted) is really orthogonal to the purpose of this document. But if
the sponsoring AD (and the IESG) truly believe that saying such a thing
represents the consensus of the IETF, I am willing to hold my nose on
this sentence. I am otherwise fully supportive of this document.