Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-04-18-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) (genart)
Deadline 2015-04-17
Requested 2015-04-06
Authors Daniel Gillmor
Draft last updated 2015-04-18
Completed reviews Genart Last Call review of -08 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Genart Telechat review of -09 by Tom Taylor (diff)
Opsdir Last Call review of -08 by Linda Dunbar (diff)
Secdir Last Call review of -08 by Klaas Wierenga (diff)
Assignment Reviewer Tom Taylor
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-04-18
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Ready with Issues
Review completed: 2015-04-18

Review
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-04-18

I am the assigned Gen-ART reviewer for this draft. For background on
Gen-ART, please see the FAQ at

<

http://wiki.tools.ietf.org/area/gen/trac/wiki/GenArtfaq>.

Please resolve these comments along with any other Last Call comments
you may receive.

Document: draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
Reviewer: Tom Taylor
Review Date: 17 April 2015
IETF LC End Date: 17 April 2015
IESG Telechat date: (if known)



Summary: Ready with minor issues and nits. I did not attempt to verify 


the hexadecimal expansions of p and q in Appendix A.




Major issues:

Minor issues:



1. Section 3 third paragraph: to what does "these values" refer? Any 


supported group at all, or specifically FFDHE groups? Nit: the ALSO is 


not part of RFC 2119 terminology, so should not be capitalized. The 


usual question: why SHOULD rather than MUST?






2. Why SHOULDs rather than MUSTs in the first paragraph of Section 4? 


What alternative does the server have in these cases?





Nits/editorial comments:



1. IDNits complains that the Abstract does not list the RFCs updated by 


this one. You need to add a statement like: "This document updates RFC 


2246, RFC 4346, RFC 4492, and RFC 5246."




2. Section 1, second-last paragraph, third line: s/;/ and/

3. Section 3 fourth paragraph: s/who/that/

4. Section 8, second paragraph, third line: s/it/IANA/

5. Section 9.1, first line: s/is hashed/are hashed/



6. Section 9.1, second indented paragraph under "An attacker who 


impersonates the client ...":



First line ends in an incomplete thought "(e.g. by ."



7. Same location, all three indented paragraphs: "e.g." has to be 


followed by a comma.




8. Section 9.2, first para, third line: s/which defines/that define/

9. Annex A.x, several instances: s/calcluated/calculated/