Re: [Last-Call] [OPSAWG] Genart last call review of draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11

[Kenneth Vaughn <kvaughn@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I have uploaded an update that more accurately indicates that a "session" is a secure association between two instances of the TLSTM.

Regards,

Ken Vaughn

Trevilon LLC

1060 S Hwy 107

Del Rio, TN 37727

+1-571-331-5670 cell

kvaughn@xxxxxxxxxxxx

www.trevilon.com

On Feb 9, 2023, at 6:56 PM, Joel Halpern via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review result: Ready

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. The General Area
Review Team (Gen-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
by the IESG for the IETF Chair.  Please treat these comments just
like any other last call comments.

For more information, please see the FAQ at

<https://trac.ietf.org/trac/gen/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Document: draft-ietf-opsawg-tlstm-update-11
Reviewer: Joel Halpern
Review Date: 2023-02-09
IETF LC End Date: 2023-02-20
IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat

Summary: This document is ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC

Major issues: N/A

Minor issues:
   In the fourth paragraph of section 1.1, the text refers to "a secure
   association between two TLS Transport Models (TLSTMs)".  As I understand
   the terminology, there is one TLSTM.  There are two instances of /
   realizations of the model.  Should the sentence refer to instances or
   realizations, rather than two models? (i-d nits gets confused by the
   references to rfc 5953 in the revision description.  After looking at it, I
   realized there was no problem here, rather it is accurate.  A comment on
   this in item 14 of the shepherd writeup would have been helpful.)

Nits/editorial comments: N/A



_______________________________________________
OPSAWG mailing list
OPSAWG@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsawg

-- 
last-call mailing list
last-call@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call