Ballot for draft-ietf-bfcpbis-rfc4582bis
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 13 and is now closed.
Version -15 addresses my DISCUSS point about the IANA considerations, as well as my other comments. Thanks for all that.
Thanks for the hard work on this protocol. I have some comments, based on a review by Suresh Krishnan, that I think should be addressed before final approval of the document. First, Section 5.1 should be clear that when used over a reliable transport, not only should the F flag be ignore but that the fragment fields (last four bytes) are not in the packet. Second, Section 6.2.3 should be clear that the header accompanies all fragments. As a result, the current formula for calculating the number of fragments is probably wrong. This too should be updated.
Thanks very much for addressing my discuss and comment, the revisions look great!
thank you especially for Section 6.2 . Unreliable Transport :)
Thanks for working through my Discuss.
- section 7: As in other cases, this might be better to refer to the generic UTA work rather than have it's own list of preferred ciphersuites. - I wondered why you'd not just moved all the way to make TLS mutual-auth mandatory to use for this.