On Mon, Dec 28, 2020 at 10:50:20PM -0800, Erik Kline via Datatracker wrote: > Erik Kline has entered the following ballot position for > draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer-06: 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: > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-external-psk-importer/ > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > COMMENT: > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > [[ questions ]] > > [ section 4.2 ] > > * I'm insufficiently versed in TLS and HKDF to know for sure, but the text > about "replace the string" and the diagrammed example don't seem to agree, > **to my untrained eye**. The example seems to show "imp binder" perhaps > concatenated with the "standard" sequence, rather than "imp binder" > /replacing/ "ext binder". > > Am I way off base here? In other words, should > > "ext binder" | "res binder" | "imp binder" > > actually be (if I understand the use of the word "replace" correctly): > > "imp binder" | "res binder" > > ?
I guess https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8446#section-7.1 does not cover this very well either, but the '|' notation is just shorthand for "there are multiple outputs, produced by using the different values as this input field". It's not concatenation, just a different output corresponding to the different case of protocol operation. Suggestions for how to clarify that would, of course, be most welcome! Thanks, Ben _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
