Network News Transfer Protocol (NNTP) Extension for Compression
RFC 8054

Note: This ballot was opened for revision 06 and is now closed.

(Stephen Farrell) Yes

Comment (2016-11-01)
No email
send info
Thanks for taking up the baton that TLS had to drop due to
CRIME!

1.3: I hope the RFC editor can try new format things to meet
these requests. One question for the authors might be whether
you'd prefer an RFC now or to wait a bit (should a wait be
needed) if tooling needs changes to handle properly
representing folks' names?

2.2.1: the "algorithm" parameter description doesn't seem to
match the example in 2.1 which specifies two algorithms. The
ABNF seems to agree with 2.2.1.

Alexey Melnikov Yes

Comment (2016-11-21)
No email
send info
Need to possibly create a new IETF mailing list for Expert Reviews (see Section 7.1.2).

(Jari Arkko) No Objection

(Alia Atlas) No Objection

Deborah Brungard No Objection

(Ben Campbell) No Objection

Alissa Cooper No Objection

(Spencer Dawkins) No Objection

(Joel Jaeggli) No Objection

Suresh Krishnan No Objection

Mirja K├╝hlewind No Objection

Comment (2016-10-31)
No email
send info
"In the case of a conflict between these two documents, [RFC3977] takes precedence."
Really? I'd hope there is no conflict...

And nit? In sec 7: "it MUST use the STARTTLS, AUTHINFO, and COMPRESS commands in that order." and "That is why this specification only prohibits the use of AUTHINFO after COMPRESS." Should this be 'before' instead of 'after'...?

(Terry Manderson) No Objection

(Kathleen Moriarty) No Objection

Comment (2016-10-31)
No email
send info
Thank you for addressing the SecDir review:
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06916.html

And also for letting us know about an upcoming draft that:
'discourages the use of TLS-level
compression, thus dealing with authentication layered with a TLS-level
compression method.'
https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/secdir/current/msg06923.html

Alvaro Retana No Objection