Last Call Review of draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09
review-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09-opsdir-lc-nainar-2020-11-30-00
Request | Review of | draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate |
---|---|---|
Requested revision | No specific revision (document currently at 12) | |
Type | Last Call Review | |
Team | Ops Directorate (opsdir) | |
Deadline | 2020-11-30 | |
Requested | 2020-11-09 | |
Authors | Kathleen Moriarty , Stephen Farrell | |
I-D last updated | 2020-11-30 | |
Completed reviews |
Secdir Last Call review of -09
by Adam W. Montville
(diff)
Genart Last Call review of -09 by Mohit Sethi (diff) Opsdir Last Call review of -09 by Nagendra Kumar Nainar (diff) |
|
Assignment | Reviewer | Nagendra Kumar Nainar |
State | Completed | |
Request | Last Call review on draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate by Ops Directorate Assigned | |
Posted at | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ops-dir/7I9qi6BnknMH4SJxJZckUb09ATY | |
Reviewed revision | 09 (document currently at 12) | |
Result | Ready | |
Completed | 2020-11-30 |
review-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09-opsdir-lc-nainar-2020-11-30-00
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 per guidelines in RFC5706. 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. Version: draft-ietf-tls-oldversions-deprecate-09 Overall Summary: This draft is deprecating TLS v1.0 and TLSv1.1 to reduce the opportunity for misconfiguration or security attack. The draft clarifies that these (to be obsoleted) versions of TLS must not be negotiated and further clarifies that the connection must be terminated upon receiving such version in the initial negotiation. Overall this is a well-written document with clear clarification on any backward compatibility requirement. I just noticed a couple of nits some of which were already mentioned in other reviews as well. I am including the same here for completeness: 1. s/waas defined/was defined 2. Some text appears to use DTLS while other use (D)TLS. I think it is better to use one common way of defining it. Thanks, Nagendra