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 rev. 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 Pettersen
Draft last updated 2013-04-04
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -04 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -06 by Elwyn Davies (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -04 by Hilarie Orman (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Hilarie Orman 
State Completed Snapshot
Review review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-secdir-lc-orman-2013-04-04
Reviewed rev. 04 (document currently at 08)
Review result Has Issues
Review completed: 2013-04-04

Review
review-ietf-tls-multiple-cert-status-extension-04-secdir-lc-orman-2013-04-04

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