ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Last Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard

2009-10-06 15:17:33
On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
IANA repository as an RFC.

There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
and the document.  These differences are not spelled out in the document
for the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding.  The document says:

   Note that the only material changes from the original registration
   should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
   specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
   should be consulted for applicability advice.

That is not correct, compare the content registered with IANA

This is true, though the difference isn't likely to have any real
impact, ever.  That may be why I neglected to update the above note.

I suggest that the first paragraph quoted above from section 4 is
modified like this:

OLD:
   Note that the only material changes from the original registration
   should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
   specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
   should be consulted for applicability advice.

NEW:
   Note that the only material changes from the original registration
   should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
   specfication, and a clarification to the description related to
   certificate's that do not use hash functions or use multiple hash
                ^
                remove apostrophe.
   functions.  We also added a note indicating that this specification
   contains applicability advice, and we moved security considerations
   notes to the security considerations section of this document.

The last sentence is copied from section 3 for consistency.

Also missing is in section 3 and section 5 is a note that references
were added to the text.  I suggest:

OLD:
   ...security considerations section of this document.  All other
   fields of the registration are copied here for the convenience of
   readers.

NEW:
   ...security considerations section of this document.  References were
   added to the description.  All other fields of the registration are
   copied here for the convenience of readers.

I'm happy with your proposed changes.

Nico
-- 
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>