Hello Francesca, > 5. ----- > > Section 10.2 > > FP: Just checking - why is 53 "incompatible with this document"?
The 53 was is used with the MAC definition of the previous version 06 of this draft. Though the MAC has been adapted, using a different extension number makes it easier to migrate existing deployments to that new MAC. At least for Eclipse/Californium I know, that is used with 53 and the old MAC. best regards Achim Kraus Am 20.04.21 um 18:22 schrieb Francesca Palombini via Datatracker:
Francesca Palombini has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id-11: 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 DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls-connection-id/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thank you for the work on this document. I only have minor comments and nits below. Francesca 1. ----- sending messages to the client. A zero-length CID value indicates that the client is prepared to send with a CID but does not wish the server to use one when sending. ... to use when sending messages towards it. A zero-length value indicates that the server will send with the client's CID but does not wish the client to include a CID. FP: clarification question: I am not sure the following formulation is very clear to me: "to send with a(/the client's) CID". Could "send with" be rephrased to clarify? The previous paragraph uses "using a CID value", that would be better IMO. 2. ----- the record format defined in {{dtls-ciphertext} with the new MAC FP: nit - missing "}" in markdown. 3. ----- The following MAC algorithm applies to block ciphers that use the with Encrypt-then-MAC processing described in [RFC7366]. FP: remove "with" 4. ----- Section 10.1 FP: I believe you should specify 1. what allowed values are for this column (i.e. Y or N, and what they mean) and 2. what happens to the existing entries - namely that they all get "N" value. 5. ----- Section 10.2 FP: Just checking - why is 53 "incompatible with this document"? 6. ----- Value Extension Name TLS 1.3 DTLS Only Recommended Reference FP: nit- s/DTLS Only/DTLS-Only to be consistent with 10.1 _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
