On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 09:08:05AM +0100, peter van der Stok wrote: > Hi Jim, > > thanks for the comments. See my reactions below. > Jim Schaad schreef op 2018-03-10 22:15: > > I agree with Hannes, this version of the document is much cleaner and > > much > > clearer. I think that it has solved most of the problems that I > > initially > > had with the draft. It is not ready to progress as there are still > > sections > > that are marked as TODO. But it is much closer to finishing that it > > was. > > That sounds hopeful. Agree about the TODOs > > > > I still have a couple of comments from a quick read through of the > > document. > > > > In section 2 - There will be a problem in that the port format > > extension is > > being eliminated in TLS 1.3 - We may want to divide this into a 1.2 and > > 1.3 > > section for clarity. > > You mean for backward compatibility?
For forwards compatibility, mostly, so we don't claim to require something that does not exist in TLS 1.3. -Ben _______________________________________________ Ace mailing list Ace@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ace