On Mon, May 22, 2023 at 12:59 PM Christopher Wood <c...@heapingbits.net> wrote:
> We trust the editors will faithfully enact all editorial changes they > agree with as the document moves forward in the process. If there were > non-editorial comments that we overlooked, could you please resurface them? > Hi, I made these comments about 1.5 months ago, so I hope it doesn't seem like I'm requesting a particularly quick turnaround. There were a couple obvious corrections EKR agreed with, but aren't done. These should be fixed before IETF Last Call. The one real problem (imho) with the document is nested MUST requirements: https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/6x0uEVIUCBwMOIaV3UBzqeRt6Ys/ EKR called this "guidance", but RFC 2119 says MUST is "an absolute requirement". The document needs to use the 2119 requirements language correctly. I understand the goal, which is to preserve wire-format compatibility in older TLS versions, even though they have security flaws. The rest of my comments are at the editor's discretion, I agree. thanks, Rob
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list TLS@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls
