Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 17 April 2015
IETF LC End Date: 17 April 2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)

Summary: Ready with minor issues and nits. I did not attempt to verify the hexadecimal expansions of p and q in Appendix A.

Major issues:

Minor issues:

1. Section 3 third paragraph: to what does "these values" refer? Any supported group at all, or specifically FFDHE groups? Nit: the ALSO is not part of RFC 2119 terminology, so should not be capitalized. The usual question: why SHOULD rather than MUST?

2. Why SHOULDs rather than MUSTs in the first paragraph of Section 4? What alternative does the server have in these cases?


Nits/editorial comments:

1. IDNits complains that the Abstract does not list the RFCs updated by this one. You need to add a statement like: "This document updates RFC 2246, RFC 4346, RFC 4492, and RFC 5246."

2. Section 1, second-last paragraph, third line: s/;/ and/

3. Section 3 fourth paragraph: s/who/that/

4. Section 8, second paragraph, third line: s/it/IANA/

5. Section 9.1, first line: s/is hashed/are hashed/

6. Section 9.1, second indented paragraph under "An attacker who impersonates the client ...":
First line ends in an incomplete thought "(e.g. by ."

7. Same location, all three indented paragraphs: "e.g." has to be followed by a comma.

8. Section 9.2, first para, third line: s/which defines/that define/

9. Annex A.x, several instances: s/calcluated/calculated/





[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]