Thanks Éric. https://github.com/tlswg/tls-record-limit/pull/16 fixes your nit.
On Thu, Feb 22, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Éric Vyncke <evyn...@cisco.com> wrote: > Reviewer: Éric Vyncke > Review result: Has Nits > > Reviewer: Eric Vyncke > Review results: has nits > > Hello Martin, > > I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing > effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG. These > comments > were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF > drafts. > > The document is about an extension to TLS (record_size_limit) allowing > endpoints to negotiate the maximum size of protected records. The document > also > deprecates a previous extension max_fragment_length. > > The different scenarios (whether endpoints support this option or not) as well > as behavior of future versions of TLS are specified. Section 5 also describes > the behavior when endpoints use the proposed and the deprecated TLS options. > > Nits in section 5: "MUST ignore *and* "max_fragment_length"" > > This is a short document and IMHO all operational issues are well documented > and correct. > > -éric > > _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
