Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Last Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard

Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com> Tue, 06 October 2009 15:43 UTC

Return-Path: <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
X-Original-To: channel-binding@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: channel-binding@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D995C3A69FF; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.887
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.887 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.159, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_MISMATCH_COM=0.553, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lUsYlqBEA96y; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:43:36 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (sca-ea-mail-3.Sun.COM [192.18.43.21]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8225A3A69FD; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 08:43:35 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from dm-central-02.central.sun.com ([129.147.62.5]) by sca-ea-mail-3.sun.com (8.13.6+Sun/8.12.9) with ESMTP id n96FjCiD008340; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 15:45:12 GMT
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (binky.Central.Sun.COM [129.153.128.104]) by dm-central-02.central.sun.com (8.13.8+Sun/8.13.8/ENSMAIL,v2.2) with ESMTP id n96FjClr054739; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 09:45:12 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from binky.Central.Sun.COM (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3) with ESMTP id n96FXs6B005025; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:33:54 -0500 (CDT)
Received: (from nw141292@localhost) by binky.Central.Sun.COM (8.14.3+Sun/8.14.3/Submit) id n96FXrZv005024; Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:33:53 -0500 (CDT)
X-Authentication-Warning: binky.Central.Sun.COM: nw141292 set sender to Nicolas.Williams@sun.com using -f
Date: Tue, 6 Oct 2009 10:33:53 -0500
From: Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams@sun.com>
To: Simon Josefsson <simon@josefsson.org>
Message-ID: <20091006153353.GI887@Sun.COM>
References: <20091005162704.8C1B43A6873@core3.amsl.com> <87vditezjn.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <87vditezjn.fsf@mocca.josefsson.org>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.7i
Cc: channel-binding@ietf.org, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [CHANNEL-BINDING] Last Call: draft-altman-tls-channel-bindings (Channel Bindings for TLS) to Proposed Standard
X-BeenThere: channel-binding@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussion of channel binding IANA registry requests and specifications <channel-binding.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/channel-binding>, <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/channel-binding>
List-Post: <mailto:channel-binding@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/channel-binding>, <mailto:channel-binding-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 06 Oct 2009 15:43:37 -0000

On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 09:45:16AM +0200, Simon Josefsson wrote:
> I support the goal of this document, i.e. to publish the text in the
> IANA repository as an RFC.
> 
> There are differences between the text in the current IANA repository
> and the document.  These differences are not spelled out in the document
> for the 'tls-server-end-point' channel binding.  The document says:
> 
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
>    should be consulted for applicability advice.
> 
> That is not correct, compare the content registered with IANA

This is true, though the difference isn't likely to have any real
impact, ever.  That may be why I neglected to update the above note.

> I suggest that the first paragraph quoted above from section 4 is
> modified like this:
> 
> OLD:
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a note indicating that the published specification
>    should be consulted for applicability advice.
> 
> NEW:
>    Note that the only material changes from the original registration
>    should be: the "owner" (now the IESG), the contacts, the published
>    specfication, and a clarification to the description related to
>    certificate's that do not use hash functions or use multiple hash
                ^
		remove apostrophe.
>    functions.  We also added a note indicating that this specification
>    contains applicability advice, and we moved security considerations
>    notes to the security considerations section of this document.
> 
> The last sentence is copied from section 3 for consistency.
> 
> Also missing is in section 3 and section 5 is a note that references
> were added to the text.  I suggest:
> 
> OLD:
>    ...security considerations section of this document.  All other
>    fields of the registration are copied here for the convenience of
>    readers.
> 
> NEW:
>    ...security considerations section of this document.  References were
>    added to the description.  All other fields of the registration are
>    copied here for the convenience of readers.

I'm happy with your proposed changes.

Nico
--