Hi Sean, Thanks for the answer and for addressing my comments.
Short observations are inserted. Regards, Dan On Tue, Feb 27, 2018 at 4:11 PM, Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > > > On Feb 20, 2018, at 05:44, Dan Romascanu <droma...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Reviewer: Dan Romascanu > > Review result: Has Issues > > > > I am the assigned OPS-DIR reviewer for this draft. The OPS DIrectorate > reviews > > a great part of the IETF documents being processed by the IESG for the > OPS ADs. > > Please treat with these comments as with all other IETF LC comments. > Please > > wait for direction from your document shepherd or AD before posting a new > > version of the draft. > > > > This document which updates several TLS and DTLS RFCs describes a number > of > > changes to TLS IANA registries that range from adding notes to the > registry all > > the way to changing the registration policy. This is not a protocol or a > > protocol update document, thus a full OPS-DIR review conforming to RFC > 5706 is > > not needed. From an operational point of view this document is > important, as > > operators may need to refer to IANA registries in their daily work of > ensuring > > functionality and maintaining networks where TLS and DTLS are used. > > > > The document is Ready from an OPS-DIR perspective, with a few minor > issues. The > > issues listed below are useful for all categories of users of this > document: > > implementers, operators, end users. None is them is major, but it would > be good > > to be addressed before the document approval. > > > > 1. The document adds a Recommended column to many of the TLS registries. > The > > rationale and meaning of a parameter being or not being Recommended are > > detailed in Section 6. It would be useful from an operator perspective > to add > > to the registries where the Recommended column is added a text similar > to the > > one in Section 6, that explains the rationale and the meaning. Something > on the > > lines of: > > > > * 'If a parameter is marked as Recommended, implementations > > should support it. Adding a recommended parameter > > to a registry or updating a parameter to recommended status > > requires standards action. Not all parameters defined in standards > > track documents need to be marked as recommended. > > > > If an item is not marked as Recommended it does not necessarily mean > > that it is flawed, rather, it indicates that either the item has not > > been through the IETF consensus process, has limited applicability, > > or is intended only for specific use cases.’ > > I’m sure that adding this note wouldn't hurt, but we’re updating all of > the registries that are getting a Recommended column to point to this > document. > > So I could could go either way here - what do other folks think? > I *think* that the note would help - clarifying what 'not marked as Recommended' means vs. (possibly) writing 'no' in the Recommended column. > > 2. Also Section 6. All sections that add Recommended columns need to also > > modify the References column in order to add a reference to this > document. > > So, I think we’ve done that (double checking): > > - s8 adds a recommended column and updates references > - s9 adds a recommended column and updates references > - s10 adds a recommended column and updates references > - s13 adds a recommended column and updates references > - s15 adds a recommended column and updates references > > > 3. Section 14. IANA shall update the reference for this registry to also > refer > > this document. > > s4 also updates the references to this document so at first I was > confused, but I think you’re looking for: > > OLD: > > 120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301] > > NEW: > > 120 no_application_protocol Y [RFC7301][this-RFC] > Yes, indeed, this is what I was looking for. > > PR submitted: > https://github.com/tlswg/draft-ietf-tls-iana-registry-updates/pull/62 > > > 4. Section 18. s/ Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated > Experts > > includes determining whether the proposed registration duplicates > existing > > functionality/Criteria that SHOULD be applied by the Designated Experts > > includes determining whether the proposed registration does not duplicate > > existing functionality/ > > I stole this wording from another RFC so I’m leaning towards leaving it as > is. > You are the native English speaker, but my acquired English skills tell me that 'criteria' means what should happen (avoid duplication). > > spt >
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
