Hi, I also reviewed this draft (looks like both of us got to do the Gen-ART review). I agree with Richards editorial comment. Thanks Roni Even
> -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Richard L. Barnes > Sent: Saturday, December 11, 2010 7:18 PM > To: [email protected]; [email protected] > Subject: [Gen-art] Gen-ART review of draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not-03 > > I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on > Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at > <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. > > Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments > you may receive. > > Document: draft-ietf-tls-ssl2-must-not-03 > Reviewer: Richard Barnes > Review Date: 11 Dec 2010 > IETF LC End Date: > IESG Telechat date: (if known) > > Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Standards Track > RFC. > > Major issues: > > Minor issues: > > Nits/editorial comments: > > [Section3] This section seems like could benefit from a little more > explanation and clarificatio. For instance, you might explicitly > deprecate the recommendations in Appendix E of the three TLS RFCs, with > the exception of accepting SSLv2 CLIENT-HELLO messages. (Might also be > worthwhile to reinforce that even after accepting the SSLv2 CLIENT- > HELLO, the server MUST NOT send any further SSLv2 messages.) > > > _______________________________________________ > Gen-art mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
