I am just finally getting caught up on mail for the EMU WG and am getting this done.
It should probably be clarified that Figure 1has the additional restriction that the server is not sending any resumption tickets as well. It would also be better to label the TLS Application Data as the commitment message as no other TLS Application data is being sent. I think that it might be reasonable to put in a note for Figure 2 that if a client does receive a fatal from the hello message, then changing the offered key share algorithm is one thing that might be successful in the future - That is put in a note to match what the request retry message does. Okay - I found the use of the retry down below but it is not referenced from here but it is still labeled as a server rejects the client hello. In section 2.1.5 - You are mandating support for resumption. Is this really what you are planning to do? If this is true then lots of the previous text seems to be off because this is not part of that discussion. In section 2.1.6 - Should there be a recommendation (or not) that when a resumption ticket is used, then a new ticket (or set of tickets) ought to be provided to the client. In section 2.5 - I don't know that I have the ability to control what the TLS block looks like to the extent that this seems to be wanting to do. In section 5.7 - I am not sure why one could not re-check for revocation when doing a resumption, I would expect that this is only server side that would do it but the current paragraph two outlaws it. I am a little surprised that the padding feature of TLS 1.3 received absolutely no mention in this document. Jim _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu