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 revision | 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 Kahn Gillmor | |
I-D 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 | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe by General Area Review Team (Gen-ART) Assigned | |
Reviewed revision | 08 (document currently at 10) | |
Result | Ready w/issues | |
Completed | 2015-04-18 |
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-genart-lc-taylor-2015-04-18-00
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/