Thanks for the review, Sean! All comments are appreciated, including those that look like sec! :)
Francesca
On 12/08/2021, 05:47, "art on behalf of Sean Turner via Datatracker" <art-bounces@xxxxxxxx on behalf of noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Reviewer: Sean Turner
Review result: Ready
Hi! Reviewing this because I got asked. I will note that it appears this
document has already been through IETF LC, SECDIR, and GENART among others.
These two are pretty minor (and look like a secret secdir review):
1. I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis refers to DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13}. Should
this I-D also refer to DTLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-dtls13} in s1? Pretty sure
changing the reference isn't going to slow down publication because this I-D
normatively references I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis.
2. Assuming that the answer is yes and you could use (D)TLS1.3 with this
protocol, I think you need to say something about or refer to the early data
concerns (see s7.2 of I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis). You might consider just
expand the 2nd sentence in the 1st para of s8 to also refer to s7.2 or
I-D.ietf-dots-rfc8782-bis?
_______________________________________________
art mailing list
art@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/art
--
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
