Eric, some inline comments.
Eric Rescorla wrote:
>> - Section 7.2.1 got me very confused:
>>
>> "Unless some other fatal alert has been transmitted, each party...."
>>
>> The text implies a classification of alerts. At least, there are 'fatal
>> alerts' some presumably 'non-fatal'. Well, after some digging and
>> initial confusion, I found that Section 7.2 has one pseudo-code
>> classifying the alerts:
>>
>> enum { warning(1), fatal(2), (255) } AlertLevel;
>>
>> Since this is an important aspect for the protocol, I would suggest to
>> add one paragraph of text in Section 7.2 describing in human-readable
>> text the alert classification. The text should also describe the
>> implications of receiving a 'warning' alert versus a 'fatal' alert.
>
> It's in the first graf of 7.2.
>
> One of the content types supported by the TLS Record layer is the
> alert type. Alert messages convey the severity of the message and a
> description of the alert. Alert messages with a level of fatal result
> in the immediate termination of the connection. In this case, other
> connections corresponding to the session may continue, but the
> session identifier MUST be invalidated, preventing the failed session
> from being used to establish new connections. Like other messages,
> alert messages are encrypted and compressed, as specified by the
> current connection state.
>
> I added a little more clarifying text.
Yes, that would help. I am just missing a sentence that says that Alerts
are classified as 'warning' and 'fatal'.
/Miguel
>
> thanks,
> -Ekr
--
Miguel A. Garcia tel:+358-50-4804586
Nokia Siemens Networks Espoo, Finland
_______________________________________________
Gen-art mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
