Skip to main content

Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-secdir-lc-orman-2013-04-04-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension
Requested revision No specific revision (document currently at 08)
Type Last Call Review
Team Security Area Directorate (secdir)
Deadline 2013-04-09
Requested 2013-03-21
Authors Yngve N. Pettersen
Draft last updated 2013-04-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Elwyn B. Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Hilarie Orman
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-secdir-lc-orman-2013-04-04
Reviewed revision 04 (document currently at 08)
Result Has Issues
Completed 2013-04-04
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-secdir-lc-orman-2013-04-04-00
Security review of draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04

Do not be alarmed.  I have reviewed this document as part of the
security directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents
being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written primarily
for the benefit of the security area directors.  Document editors and
WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call
comments.

The final paragraph in section 2.2 discusses using an unauthenticated
session for the purpose of obtaining certificates in order to
authenticate the session.  Sending usernames and passwords over the
connection while unauthenticated is regarded as "inappropriate".  This
seems to be a serious problem, deserving of at least a "MUST NOT".

In section 2.2, "A server that receive a client hello" should be
"A server that receives a client hello".  Later,
"require trust in the server, and the server certificate has not been"
reads better without the comma.

Hilarie