Mirja Kühlewind has entered the following ballot position for
draft-ietf-tls-grease-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html
for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions.

The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here:


One comment/question: I think I didn't quite understand what a client is
supposed to do if the connection fails with use of greasing values...? The
security considerations seems to indicate that you should not try to re-connect
without use of grease but rather just fail completely...? Also should you cache
the information that greasing failed maybe?

And a note on normative language:

"Implementations sending multiple
   GREASE extensions in a single block thus must ensure the same value
   is not selected twice."
Should this be a "MUST"?

Also this is an interesting MUST:
"... MUST correctly ignore unknown values..."
While this is the whole point of the document, I assume this is already
normatively specified in RFC8446 and therefore it could make sense to use
non-formative language here...

TLS mailing list

Reply via email to