Thanks! On 17 Dec 2015, at 18:04, Hannes Tschofenig <hannes.tschofe...@gmx.net> wrote:
> 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: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ Gen-art mailing list Gen-art@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/gen-art
