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 revision 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 Kahn Gillmor
I-D 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
Request Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe by Ops Directorate Assigned
Reviewed revision 08 (document currently at 10)
Result Has nits
Completed 2015-04-26
review-ietf-tls-negotiated-ff-dhe-08-opsdir-lc-dunbar-2015-04-26-00

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