I support eventual publication of this (see last paragraph), but the IANA considerations (Section 6) does not belong. First, it is the wrong level of review, as Stephen has pointed out; that alone is enough to send the draft back to the WG. Even if that is fixed, the instructions to the DE’s are insufficient – how are they (we) to decide between two submissions that cover the same item? Really, the proper place for that kind of entry is in the document defining them. But I don’t think the WG has the stomach to enforce that kind of thing, and that seems to me not an unreasonable view to take.
As a nit “applicability statement” in Sec 5 should also point to the security considerations of the draft. I disagree strongly with Stephen about whether or not this should be published at all. Enabling common debug tooling is a good thing to do. I see that draft-ietf-tls-keylogfile is awaiting references and such. I suggest that draft be pulled back to the WG, the 30 lines from this draft that make up Sec 3 and Sec 4 be merged into the basic keylogfile draft, and the WGLC, etc., be repeated and this draft be dropped.
_______________________________________________ TLS mailing list -- tls@ietf.org To unsubscribe send an email to tls-le...@ietf.org
