On Aug 21, 2023, at 11:05 AM, Heikki Vatiainen <h...@radiatorsoftware.com> wrote: > > The list in section 4.2.1 "General TLV Format" includes: > 11 PAC TLV (DEPRECATED) > > I suggest re-adding the subsection for PAC TLV with a brief note that it's > deprecated. This would serve as reminder that TLV number 11 did exist and it > would also keep the section numbering unchanged making it easier to compare > RFC 7170 and its updated version. This is a purely an editorial idea.
I'm not sure it's useful to document things which aren't used. But It's useful to compare section numbers. I'll add a paragraph explaining that it was removed, and why. > > Section 7.7. "Security Claims": > When the draft source is processed, incorrect renumbering happens. First, see > this line > > https://github.com/emu-wg/rfc7170bis/blob/main/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis.md?plain=1#L3363 > Then compare it to the processed HTML version. > https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-ietf-emu-rfc7170bis-12.html > > Updating the draft source file from '2.' to 'Note 2.", and similarly for note > 1, likely fixes this. OK. I'll fix it. > Appendix A.4. and A.5. both say that TLS_RSA_WITH_AES_128_CBC_SHA is a > mandatory ciphersuite and then refer to section 3.2. for more information. > Section 3.2. has the updated information but A.4. and A.5. still have old RFC > 7170 ciphersuite. it's probably best to just remove the explicit cipher suite name from Appendix A.4 and A.5 > Example flows C.11., C.12. and C.13. are not named. Thanks. I'll add titles. Alan DeKok. _______________________________________________ Emu mailing list Emu@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/emu
