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

Reply via email to