Éric Vyncke has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-dtls-rrc-19: 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-dtls-rrc/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for addressing my previous DISCUSS point (draft-ietf-intarea-icmp-exten-hdr-len-01) and most of the COMMENTS below. Regards -éric ## COMMENTS (non-blocking) ### FATT process ? Out of curiosity, I still wonder what `FATT process` and `FATT review` mean in the shepherd write-up. ### Use of "path" Probably too late to change, but the choice of "path" rather than "anchor" or "socket" (or something else) is poor... the actual path (the set of network links and devices) keeps changing in an IP network. ### Section 1 A small graphical (packet exchange) would be useful even if the text is clear. ### Section 3 What is the expected server behavior when the client sends the rcc extension without offering the connection_id extension ? Is the whole handshake stopped or is the option ignored ? Please be specific. ### Section 4 Probably due to my lack of familiarity with the used syntax, but it seems that the enum part is not really part of the figure 1 legend of `Return Routability Check Message`. It seems more like an addition to TLS Content Type registry. Suggest to split this figure in two figures with 2 distinct legends. ### Section 5 s/has faster routing/has faster forwarding/ ? ### Section 5.1.1 Related to `the original packet still reaches the intended destination`, does this mean that an attacker can prevent rebinding to a new address/port by sending the packet from the 'old' address/port ? ### Section 5.2.1 What is "AP" in figures 5 and 6? ### Section 10.2 As this section ends with a recommendation, should it clearly be in the protocol specification part rather than in operational considerations ? _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
