Subject: [jose] CLOSED: Add key wrap functionality for EC

From: Karen O'Donoghue <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 06:35:04 -0400

Folks,

The results of this poll were:
12 YES - We need to require the ability for doing a key agreement followed by a key wrap to get the CMK
1 NO - We do not need to require the ability for doing a key agreement followed by a key wrap to get the CMK
1 DISCUSS - More discussion is needed

Based upon these results, I am making a consensus call that we do need to require the
ability for doing a key agreement followed by a key wrap to get the CMK.
This issue is now closed.

Thanks to all who participated in this poll.

Karen O'Donoghue (writing as working group co-chair)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Jim Schaad
Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 12:08 AM
To: [email-masked]
Subject: [jose] POLL: Add key wrap functionality for EC

<CHAIR>

If you voted at the face-2-face please do not vote again.  If you want to provide comments please change the title from POLL to DISCUSS.

Do we need to require the ability for doing a key agree followed by a key wrap to get the CMK?

Current process uses the output of the key agree as the CMK, saying yes would allow for both methods to operate.

Room vote:  12 yes, 1 no, 1 discuss

_______________________________________________
jose mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/jose