Ben Campbell has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-tls-padding-03: 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/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-padding/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- -- Abstract: More in the abstract would be nice. Why'd would one want to do this? -- 1, first paragraph, last sentence: Can you elaborate on this? The motivation seems weak without a bit more. When would you choose to use this at all? Wouldn't it make more sense to fix the bug? -- 5, last sentence: Do you expect anyone to implement this MAY? It seems like this either needs to be stronger, or removed as a "why bother"? -- 6: I'm not sure I understand the meaning of "permanently assign the early code point for the padding extension in its ExtensionType registry". Does this mean that an early allocation was done for this? If so, it seems like the IANA section should still describe the code point being registered, or perhaps give a pointer to or description of the early allocation. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
