Hi Adam, Can you post a revision of this with those changes before Thursday? If so, I'll put this on the Sep 3 IESG telechat for approval.
I didn't see any other changes that need to be made as a result of the IETF LC, but please correct me if that's wrong. Thanks, S. On 18/08/15 01:31, Adam Langley wrote: > On Fri, Aug 14, 2015 at 6:00 PM, Meral Shirazipour > <[email protected]> wrote: >> -The draft's "Intended status:" is missing in the title. > > Fixed (locally). > >> -[Page 2], Introduction, it would be clearer if the introduction would give >> more high level information or a reference to the 'implementation bug' being >> referred to: >> >> "At least one of these implementation bugs can be ameliorated by making the >> ClientHello even larger." >> >> Is this bug the one explained in Section 4? > > It is. Basically this draft exists entirely because of a bug in F5 > products, but the rough sense from ekr (TLS WG chair) was that we > probably didn't want to call them out specifically because they > (eventually) did cooperate and help us work around the issues. > > Thus there's some unfortunate ambiguity in the text. If you think > that's nonsense then I sympathise and can take it up with the chairs. > >> -[Page 2], "consists of an arbitary"---->"consists of an arbitrary" > > Thanks, fixed (locally). > > > Cheers > > AGL > _______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
