|
1.
|
Clear description of the referenced document:
|
|
|
|
|
2.
|
Status of approval:
|
|
|
Standards Track - Proposed Standard (December 2005)
|
|
3.
|
Justification for the specific reference:
|
|
|
The referenced document is the text on which draft Recommendation X.nsom-sec is based.
|
|
4.
|
Current information, if any, about IPR issues:
|
|
|
None.
|
|
5.
|
Other useful information describing the "Quality" of the document:
|
|
|
RFC 4279 has been in existence since 2005. This text is a Proposed Standard. These documents have been reviewed extensively in IETF.
|
|
6.
|
The degree of stability or maturity of the document:
|
|
|
RFC is a standards-track document and is currently in the "Proposed Standard" state.
|
|
7.
|
Relationship with other existing or emerging documents:
|
|
|
RFC 4279 defines the Pre-Shared Key Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS) and is expected to be widely used.
|
|
8.
|
Any explicit references within that referenced document should also be listed:
|
|
|
[AES] Chown, P., "Advanced Encryption Standard (AES)Ciphersuites for Transport Layer Security (TLS)", RFC 3268, June 2002./
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RANDOMNESS] Eastlake, D., 3rd, Schiller, J., and S. Crocker,"Randomness Requirements for Security", BCP 106, RFC 4086, June 2005./
[TLS] Dierks, T. and C. Allen, "The TLS Protocol Version 1.0",RFC 2246, January 1999./
[UTF8] Yergeau, F., "UTF-8, a transformation format of ISO 10646", STD 63, RFC 3629, November 2003./
[KEYWORDS] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, March 1997./
[RELATIONAL] Segmuller, W., "Sieve Extension: Relational Tests", RFC 3431, December 2002./
[SIEVE] Showalter, T., "Sieve: A Mail Filtering Language", RFC 3028, January 2001.
|
|
9.
|
Qualification of
ISOC/IETF:
|
|
|
9.1-9.6 Decisions of ITU Council to admit ISOC to participate in the work of the Sector (June 1995 and June 1996).
9.7 The Internet Engineering Steering Group (IESG) is responsible for ongoing maintenance of the RFCs when the need arises. Comments on RFCs and corresponding changes are accommodated through the existing standardization process.
9.8 Each revision of a given RFC has a different RFC number, so no confusion is possible. All RFCs always remain available on-line. An index of RFCs and their status may be found in the IETF archives at http://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc.html.
|
|
10.
|
Other (for any supplementary information):
|
|
|
References should always be made to RFC numbers (and not by other designations such as STD, BCP, etc.). References not to be made to documents referred to as "Internet Drafts" or RFCs categorized as "Historic". Normative references should not be made to RFCs that are not standards, for example, "Informational" and "Experimental" RFCs.
|
|
