Ballot for draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe
Yes
No Objection
Note: This ballot was opened for revision 09 and is now closed.
Thank you for your work on this draft, it is very well written, easy-to-read, while solving an important problem. Thanks for the detailed security considerations as well.
The intended status in the document text does, indeed, need to be changed to "Standards Track". The last call was issued as "Proposed Standard", and the IESG ballot is set up for that, so I think we're OK -- please just fix the text in the next document rev.
Not issue on the technical content and the publication of this document, but https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe/ and the write-up mention "Standard Track" while the draft status is Informational, as spotted by Linda in her OPS-DIR review below: This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known structure and a mechanism for peers to negotiate support for these groups. The document is well written and very clear. A couple questions: 1) Why this document is not standard track? 2) Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g. “p-1” or p (Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be “p” (page 17). What is the significance of the range?