### Section 2
Thanks for prefixing NIST with US in `US National Institute of Standards and
Technology` but you forgot to introduce the NIST acronym ;-)
Already fixed via Med’s recommendations in a later draft.
Any reason why BCP14-like notation is used in `TLS 1.2 WILL NOT be supported` ?
Rather then `supported`, which is outside of the IETF remit, why not using
`specified` ?
I had thought WILL NOT was BCP14; fixed. And yes supported->specified.
## Section 4
s/Any TLS entry added after the IESG approves publication of {THIS RFC}/Any TLS
entry added after the publication of {THIS RFC}/ ? It is clearer for outsiders
at the expense of a small time window between IESG approval and RFC publication.
IANA starts making changes once the publication is approved, and they suggested
this wording so I preer to leave it as-is.
```
Any registries created after this document is approved for publication should
indicate whether the actions defined here are applicable ``` I find the above
text really vague and underspecified. Who will decide the applicability ?
Should there be guidelines ?
The intent is that the place where the registry is defined determines whether
or not the document applies, so it is deliberately vague and left to the future
authors to specify. Is there specific wording you think that makes the intent
more clear?
_______________________________________________
TLS mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
