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 | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension by Security Area Directorate Assigned | |
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