Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-04-26-00

Request Review of draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe
Requested rev. no specific revision (document currently at 10)
Type Last Call Review
Team Ops Directorate (opsdir)
Deadline 2015-04-17
Requested 2015-04-05
Authors Daniel Gillmor
Draft last updated 2015-04-26
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 Linda Dunbar
State Completed
Review review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-04-26
Reviewed rev. 08 (document currently at 10)
Review result Has Nits
Review completed: 2015-04-26

Review
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-04-26






Hi!





I have reviewed this document as part of the Operational directorate's ongoing effort to review all IETF documents being processed by the IESG.  These comments were written with the intent of improving the operational aspects of the IETF drafts. Comments that
 are not addressed in last call may be included in AD reviews during the IESG review.  Document editors and WG chairs should treat these comments just like any other last call comments.










This document is on the Informational Track to specify ways for client and server to establish common finite-field DH parameters with known
 structure and a mechanism for




peers to negotiate support for these groups.




 




The document is well written and very clear.





 




A couple questions:





1)

   


Why this document is not standard track?





2)

   


Several sections requests range in reference of p, e.g.  “p-1” or p (Section 5). But there are so many numbers that can be “p” (page 17). What is the significance
 of the range? 




 




 




Cheers,





 




Linda Dunbar