It's a little bit off though, isn't it?
Implementations that support TLS 1.3 should refer to TLS 1.3? Yes. Why does this even need to be written?
Also what is the consensus on this paragraph:
"Implementations MUST support TLS 1.2 [RFC5246] and are REQUIRED to support the TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 cipher suite [RFC9325]."
I cannot understand why TLS 1.2 is a "MUST" here. How did the WG get there?
thanks,
Rob
On Sun, Nov 5, 2023 at 3:15 PM Sean Turner <sean@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Oct 28, 2023, at 18:02, Jiankang Yao via Datatracker <noreply@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
> Review result: Ready
>
> I am the assigned ART-ART reviewer for this draft. The Art Area
> Review Team (ART-ART) reviews all IETF documents being processed
> by the IESG. Please treat these comments just
> like any other last call comments.
>
> Document: draft-ietf-netconf-over-tls13-03
> Reviewer: Jiankang Yao
> Review Date: 2023-10-28
> IETF LC End Date: 2023-11-13
> IESG Telechat date: Not scheduled for a telechat
>
> Summary: Ready for publication as a Proposed Standard RFC
>
> This document is clear and in good shape.
>
>
> BTW,
> In section 1,
> "
> | Implementations that support TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis]
> | should refer to TLS 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-rfc8446bis] in Sections 4
> | and 5 of [RFC7589].
> "
>
> The "|" looks to be odd to me.
>
> remove "|"?
Hi! This is part of the “aside” feature. I guess we could put “NOTE:” in front of it to make it clearer.
spt
_______________________________________________
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
