Hi Francesca, Thanks for reviewing. Answers in-line.
--Mohit On 10/6/21 12:10 AM, Francesca Palombini via Datatracker wrote: > Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-20: No Objection > > When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all > email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this > introductory paragraph, however.) > > > Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/blog/handling-iesg-ballot-positions/ > for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. > > > The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Thank you for the work on this document. I only have one minor comment and a > nit. Neither require replies strictly speaking, please feel free to address as > you see fit. > > Francesca > > ## minors > > 1. ----- > > All the following references in [RFC5216] are updated as specified > below when EAP-TLS is used with TLS 1.3. > > All references to [RFC2560] are updated with [RFC6960]. > > All references to [RFC3280] are updated with [RFC5280]. > > All references to [RFC4282] are updated with [RFC7542]. > > FP: I just want to double check everybody is ok with doing this type of update > to the references: as the table of contents of these documents are not exactly > the same, strictly speaking this could lead to some inaccuracies - for example > RFC 5216 states: > > as a server certificate. Implementations SHOULD use the Extended Key > Usage (see Section 4.2.1.13 of [RFC3280]) extension and ensure that > > Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 3280 is > > 4.2.1.13. CRL Distribution Points ..................45 > > Section 4.2.1.13 of RFC 5280 is > > 4.2.1.13 Extended Key Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 > > This is not a big issue because the table of contents are mostly the same, but > still requires the reader to be able to backtrack the right section (in this > case, it would be 4.2.1.14) (This is only an example, I haven't checked all > occurrences of those references in RFC 5216). John has updated Appendix A: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-emu-eap-tls13-21#appendix-A. > > ## nits > > 2. ----- > > FP: s/shepard/shepherd Fixed. > > > > _______________________________________________ > Emu mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
