Hi Jonathan, Thanks for carefully reading the spec and for your feedback.
Let me quickly respond to some of your comments. -----Original Message----- From: TLS <tls-boun...@ietf.org> On Behalf Of Jonathan Hammell Sent: Friday, March 27, 2020 6:10 PM To: Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> Cc: TLS List <tls@ietf.org> Subject: Re: [TLS] 3rd WGLC for draft-ietf-tls-dtls13 I know that this WGLC was supposed to focus on the diff between -34 and -37. I don't have any comments on that diff, but I do have some comments on the draft following a re-read of the entire document. # Minor The term "deprotection" is used twice in document but never defined. [Hannes] Looking at the text I believe we can just remove the term. Here is the PR: https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/pull/129 ~snip~ # Nits Section 3.1 Packet Loss. Figure 1 is a little confusing since it resembles Figure 5; as each has the server sending a HelloRetryRequest. Might illustrate the concept better to have the server send a ServerHello in Figure 1 rather than a HelloRetryRequest? [Hannes] I changed Figure 1, as suggested. Note, however, there is nothing wrong with the figures as they are because these two sections describe different concepts. Figure 1 talks about packet loss and retransmissions while Figure 5 is about the cookie exchange. PR is here: https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/pull/130 and for the wording changes below I have created another PR here: https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec/pull/131 Section 5.1. para 3 - Typo. "The DTLS 1.3 specification changes the way how cookies are exchanged compared to DTLS 1.2. DTLS 1.3 re-uses the HelloRetryRequest message". The "... the way how cookies..." either use "how" or "the way" but not both. [Hannes] OK. Page 9 last para - Typo. s/assocatiation/association [Hannes] Fixed. In section 3, bullet #3, the term "flight" is used without being defined; a reference to section 5.6 would be nice. [Hannes] I changed the sentence to omit the term 'flight' to avoid the forward reference to Section 5.6 in the overview. MSL is used first in section 4.2.1 but only defined in section 5.7.1 [Hannes] I added MSL to the terminology section. In section 5.11 the notion of "CID concept" is mentioned. Might be nice to refer to section 9.1 where an example of the concept is presented. Also, section 9.1 never mentions "CID concept"; might be good to add the term to know that we are talking about the same thing. [Hannes] I removed the term concept and added a sentence to the terminology. In Section 6.1, the phrase "...loss and re-order an identifier is needed to determine..." could use a comma after "re-order" and possibly replace "re-order" with "re-ordering". [Hannes] Ok. In Section 6.1, the phrase "In addition to the key derivation steps described in Section 7 of [TLS13] triggered by the states during the handshake a sender may want to rekey at any time during the lifetime of the connection and has to have a way to indicate that it is updating its sending cryptographic keys" is long and difficult to follow. It could be rephrased as "In addition to the key derivation steps described in Section 7 of [TLS13], a sender may want to rekey at any time during the lifetime of the connection. The epoch value provides a means to indicate that the sender is updating its sending cryptographic keys." [Hannes] I re-worded the sentence. In Section 6.1, replace "For example, client incorrectly uses..." with "For example, if a client incorrectly uses..." [Hannes] OK. In Section 7, the term "current key" is used in the phrase "Implementations SHOULD simply use the current key." Would it be clearer to say that "Implementations SHOULD use the key material of the current epoch"? [Hannes] Fine for me. Section 11, second para, s/Even with such a test, An/Even with such a test, an [Hannes] Fixed. Section 11, third bullet: the statement "...DTLS 1.3 records irrespectively of the use of a CID" could be rephrased as "...DTLS 1.3 records irrespective of whether a CID is used or not." [Hannes] Fixed. Ciao Hannes On Fri, Mar 20, 2020 at 10:18 AM Sean Turner <s...@sn3rd.com> wrote: > > This is the third working group last call for the "The Datagram > Transport Layer Security (DTLS) Protocol Version 1.3" draft available > at https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-dtls13/. Please > review the document and send your comments to the list by 2359 UTC on > 27 March 2019. > > This is a targeted one-week WGLC intended to focus on the changes from -34, > which was the subject of the second working group last call, and -37. The > diffs between -34 and -37 can be found at: > https://www.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-ietf-tls-dtls13-34&url2=draft- > ietf-tls-dtls13-37 As you will see in the diffs, the changes include > 2119-language related changes in s5.1 and s7. These two changes were > introduced in -35, which was post in November. > > Note the the GH repo for this draft can be found at: > https://github.com/tlswg/dtls13-spec > > Thanks, > Chris, Joe, and Sean > _______________________________________________ > TLS mailing list > TLS@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls IMPORTANT NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately and do not disclose the contents to any other person, use it for any purpose, or store or copy the information in any medium. Thank you. _______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
