Ketan Talaulikar has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis-12: 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/about/groups/iesg/statements/handling-ballot-positions/ for more information about how to handle DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-rfc8446bis/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks to the authors, contributors, and the WG for the work on this important document. I have the following comments/suggestions to offer on this document. 1) In the abstract ... and this is assuming that this document is not actually obsoleting 8422 ... CURRENT This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes RFCs 5077, 5246, 6961, 8422, and 8446. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations. SUGGEST This document updates RFCs 5705, 6066, 7627, and 8422 and obsoletes RFC 8446. This document also specifies new requirements for TLS 1.2 implementations. 2) Please state in the introduction section on what part of 8422 is being updated by this document. 3) RFCs 5077, 5246 and 6961 were actually obsoleted by RFC 8446 and not this document. Please rephrase some of the references to those documents saying that they were obsoleted by RFC 8446 and not "this document". 4) Ref section 1.4 - does this document also not update RFC7627 with its terminology change? 5) I found the IANA consideration section hard to follow in terms of clarity on what exactly is the action for IANA team from this document. Section 11.1 has clear actions but the parent section 11 is perhaps having some remnant actions from RFC8446 that might be confusing. If all that the section 11 talks about is something that IANA has already done, perhaps simply a description of the IANA registries pertaining to this document (previously pertaining to RFC8446) without talking about any action that was done or to be done would be more clear? And then there is 11.1 for the actual IANA work/actions to be done? 6) I believe there is an error with the reference to RFC8444. That one is a OSPF routing protocol extension and don't see how that comes into TLS land. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
