Yes, I have seen the review comments and will address them in the next few days.
On 12/17/2015 01:56 PM, Jari Arkko wrote: > Thank you very much for the review, Jouni! Authors, do you have observed > these comments? > > Jari > > On 30 Nov 2015, at 05:46, Jouni <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on >> Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at >> <http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>. >> >> Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments you >> may receive. >> >> Document: draft-ietf-tls-cached-info-20 >> Reviewer: Jouni Korhonen >> Review Date: 2015-11-29 >> IETF LC End Date: 2015-12-04 >> IESG Telechat date: 2015-12-17 >> >> >> Summary: >> -------- >> >> Ready for publication with some nits. >> >> Comments: >> --------- >> >> The document was good read and easy to understand. >> >> Minor issues/nits: >> ------------------ >> >> * IDnits spits out some warning & comments that all seem to be bogus. >> However, the normative reference to RFC 4634 needs to be replaced with RFC >> 6234. >> >> * The document describes in few places how the mechanisms specified >> extends/updates the Certificate and CertificateRequest structures. So maybe >> the draft should also state that in its boilerplate “Updates: 5246, 7250” ? >> >> * Line 99: s/its’/its >> >> * Line 164: s/data\.\./data\. >> >> * Section 5 talks about “input data” for the hash & fingerprint calculation. >> What the “input data” exactly is becomes obvious after reading the Appendix >> A. However, for non-TLS WG activist it was not obvious from the first sight. >> Suggest adding a forward reference to Appendix A example. >> >> * Section 6 uses [0], [1], .. [4]. While these are perfectly correct they >> can be mixed with references in the first sight -> few seconds of confusion >> ;) I would suggest using (0), .. (4). >> >> * The document uses referencing all styles “RFC 7250 [RFC7250]”, “RFC 7250” >> and “[RFC7250]”. Pick one. >> >> * It is unclear to me what happens & what are the procedures when two >> different “input data”s generate the same fingerprint. >> _______________________________________________ >> Gen-art mailing list >> Gen-art@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
